TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance of gastrointestinal pathologists within a national digital review panel for Barrett's oesophagus in the Netherlands
T2 - results of 80 prospective biopsy reviews
AU - Klaver, Esther
AU - van der Wel, Myrtle
AU - Duits, Lucas
AU - Pouw, Roos
AU - Seldenrijk, Kees
AU - Offerhaus, Johan
AU - Visser, Mike
AU - Ten Kate, Fiebo
AU - Biermann, Katharina
AU - Brosens, Lodewijk
AU - Doukas, Michael
AU - Huysentruyt, Clément
AU - Karrenbeld, Arend
AU - Kats-Ugurlu, Gursah
AU - van der Laan, Jaap
AU - van Lijnschoten, Ineke
AU - Moll, Freek
AU - Ooms, Ariadne
AU - Tijssen, Jan
AU - Meijer, Sybren
AU - Bergman, Jacques
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/1/1
Y1 - 2021/1/1
N2 - AIMS: The histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight 'core' pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel.METHODS: Pathologists independently assessed digital slides in two phases. Both phases consisted of 40 cases, with a group discussion after phase I. For all cases, a previous consensus diagnosis made by five core pathologists was available, which was used as reference. The following criteria were used: (1) percentage of 'indefinite for dysplasia' diagnoses, (2) percentage agreement with consensus diagnosis and (3) proportion of cases with a consensus diagnosis of dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic. Benchmarks were based on scores of the core pathologists.RESULTS: After phase I, 1/7 pathologists met the benchmark score for all quality criteria, yet three pathologists only marginally failed the agreement with consensus diagnosis (score 68.3%, benchmark 69%). After a group discussion and phase II, 5/6 remaining aspirant panel members qualified with all scores within the benchmark range.CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch BO review panel now consists of 14 pathologists, who-after structured assessments and group discussions-can be considered homogeneous in their review of biopsies with LGD.
AB - AIMS: The histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight 'core' pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel.METHODS: Pathologists independently assessed digital slides in two phases. Both phases consisted of 40 cases, with a group discussion after phase I. For all cases, a previous consensus diagnosis made by five core pathologists was available, which was used as reference. The following criteria were used: (1) percentage of 'indefinite for dysplasia' diagnoses, (2) percentage agreement with consensus diagnosis and (3) proportion of cases with a consensus diagnosis of dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic. Benchmarks were based on scores of the core pathologists.RESULTS: After phase I, 1/7 pathologists met the benchmark score for all quality criteria, yet three pathologists only marginally failed the agreement with consensus diagnosis (score 68.3%, benchmark 69%). After a group discussion and phase II, 5/6 remaining aspirant panel members qualified with all scores within the benchmark range.CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch BO review panel now consists of 14 pathologists, who-after structured assessments and group discussions-can be considered homogeneous in their review of biopsies with LGD.
KW - Barrett's oesophagus
KW - digital pathology
KW - quality assurance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85086112016&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206511
DO - https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206511
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32467320
SN - 0021-9746
VL - 74
SP - 48
EP - 52
JO - Journal of clinical pathology
JF - Journal of clinical pathology
IS - 1
M1 - 206511
ER -