Interobserver Agreement in the Diagnosis of Anal Dysplasia: Comparison Between Gastrointestinal and Gynaecologic Pathologists and Utility of Consensus Conferences

Unravelling interobserver variability in gastrointestinal glandular neoplasia: a contemporary study of US and Korean pathologists

AIMS

Interobserver variability in the assessment of gastric neoplasia biopsies between most Western and Eastern (predominantly represented by Japanese in the literature) pathologists has been documented. It is unknown if such variability exists between the US and Korean pathologists in the current era.

METHODS

Ten gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists from the USA (n=5) and South Korea (n=5) evaluated 100 scanned images of gastric (n=50) and colorectal (n=50) neoplasia biopsies and answered multiple questionnaires. Consensus was defined as the answer chosen by the majority. Cohen's (κc) and Fleiss' kappa (κf) values were calculated between the consensus of the two groups and among the raters, respectively.

RESULTS

Both groups reached a consensus in the majority of cases (74%-100%) with slight to perfect intergroup (κc=0.049-1.000) and no to substantial intragroup (κf=-0.083 to 0.660) agreements. For gastric neoplasia, Korean pathologists relied heavily on cytoarchitectural atypia, whereas the US pathologists focused on stromal invasion when diagnosing adenocarcinoma. For colorectal neoplasia, the Korean pathologists identified concurrent intramucosal carcinoma when diagnosing invasive adenocarcinoma, while the presence of desmoplasia was a prerequisite for the diagnosis of invasive adenocarcinoma for the US pathologists.

CONCLUSIONS

For GI neoplasia biopsy interpretation, the diagnostic approach of Korean pathologists is similar to that of Eastern/Japanese pathologists. Consensus outperformed kappa statistics in capturing the magnitude of inter-rater and intergroup reliability, highlighting the potential benefit of consensus meetings to decrease the gap between Western and Eastern diagnostic approaches.

Anal intraepithelial neoplasia: a review of terminology, differential diagnoses, and patient management

Despite the knowledge of etiological association with high-risk human papilloma viruses and high-risk patient cohorts, the incidence of anal squamous cell carcinoma has continued to rise. The known precursor lesion (in particular, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) makes it amenable to screening and surveillance strategies. However, the diagnosis of anal intraepithelial neoplasia suffers from interpretation challenges leading to high interobserver variability, along with numerous differential diagnoses and lingering terminology issues. Proper treatment of anal lesions requires accurate diagnosis, and while a variety of modalities are available for treatment, the rate of recurrence remains high and each modality has its own set of side effects and complications. The aim of this review article is to outline the diagnostic considerations and provide practical tips for diagnosing anal squamous intraepithelial lesions.