Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: A reaffirmation

Elizabeth Montgomery, Mary P. Bronner, John R. Goldblum, Joel K. Greenson, Marian M. Haber, John Hart, Laura W. Lamps, Gregory Y. Lauwers, Audrey J. Lazenby, David N. Lewin, Marie E. Robert, Alicia Y. Toledano, Yu Shyr, Kay Washington

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

619 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Morphologic assessment of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus, despite limitations, remains the basis of treatment. We rigorously tested modified 1988 criteria, assessing intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Participants submitted slides of Barrett mucosa negative (BE) and indefinite (IND) for dysplasia, with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and with carcinoma. Two hundred fifty slides were divided into 2 groups. The first 125 slides were reviewed, without knowledge of the prior diagnoses, on 2 occasions by 12 gastrointestinal pathologists without prior discussion of criteria. Results were analyzed by κ statistics, which correct for agreement by chance. A consensus meeting was then held, establishing, by group review of the index 125 slides, the criteria outlined herein. The second 125-slide set was then reviewed twice by each of the same 12 pathologists, and follow-up κ statistics were calculated. When statistical analysis was performed using 2 broad diagnostic categories (BE, IND, and LG v HG and carcinoma), intraobserver agreement was near perfect both before and after the consensus meeting (mean κ = 0.82 and 0.80). Interobserver agreement was substantial (κ = 0.66) and improved after the consensus meeting (κ = 0.70; P = .02). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 clinically relevant separations (BE; IND and LGD; HGD; carcinoma), mean intraobserver κ improved from 0.64 to 0.68 (both substantial) after the consensus meeting, and mean interobserver κ improved from 0.43 to 0.46 (both moderate agreement). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 diagnostic categories that required distinction between LGD and IND (BE; IND; LGD; HGD and carcinoma), the pre-consensus meeting mean intraobserver κ was 0.60 (substantial agreement), improving to 0.65 after the meeting (P < .05). Interobserver agreement was poorer, with premeeting and postmeeting mean values unchanged (κ = 0.43 at both times). Interobserver agreement was substantial for HGD/carcinoma (κ = 0.65), moderate to substantial for BE (κ = 0.58), fair for LGD (κ = 0.32), and slight for IND (κ = 0.15). The intraobserver reproducibility for the diagnosis of dysplasia in BE was substantial. Interobserver reproducibility was substantial at the ends of the spectrum (BE and HG/carcinoma) but slight for IND. Both intraobserver and interobserver variation improved overall after the application of a modified grading system developed at a consensus conference but not in separation of BE, IND, and LGD. The criteria used by the group are presented.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)368-378
Number of pages11
JournalHuman Pathology
Volume32
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Fingerprint

Barrett Esophagus
Carcinoma
Observer Variation
Mucous Membrane

Keywords

  • Barrett esophagus
  • Dysplasia
  • Interobserver
  • Variability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Montgomery, E., Bronner, M. P., Goldblum, J. R., Greenson, J. K., Haber, M. M., Hart, J., ... Washington, K. (2001). Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: A reaffirmation. Human Pathology, 32(4), 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2001.23510

Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus : A reaffirmation. / Montgomery, Elizabeth; Bronner, Mary P.; Goldblum, John R.; Greenson, Joel K.; Haber, Marian M.; Hart, John; Lamps, Laura W.; Lauwers, Gregory Y.; Lazenby, Audrey J.; Lewin, David N.; Robert, Marie E.; Toledano, Alicia Y.; Shyr, Yu; Washington, Kay.

In: Human Pathology, Vol. 32, No. 4, 01.01.2001, p. 368-378.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Montgomery, E, Bronner, MP, Goldblum, JR, Greenson, JK, Haber, MM, Hart, J, Lamps, LW, Lauwers, GY, Lazenby, AJ, Lewin, DN, Robert, ME, Toledano, AY, Shyr, Y & Washington, K 2001, 'Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: A reaffirmation', Human Pathology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2001.23510
Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, Greenson JK, Haber MM, Hart J et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: A reaffirmation. Human Pathology. 2001 Jan 1;32(4):368-378. https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2001.23510
Montgomery, Elizabeth ; Bronner, Mary P. ; Goldblum, John R. ; Greenson, Joel K. ; Haber, Marian M. ; Hart, John ; Lamps, Laura W. ; Lauwers, Gregory Y. ; Lazenby, Audrey J. ; Lewin, David N. ; Robert, Marie E. ; Toledano, Alicia Y. ; Shyr, Yu ; Washington, Kay. / Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus : A reaffirmation. In: Human Pathology. 2001 ; Vol. 32, No. 4. pp. 368-378.
@article{187eac1150e844bdac106e0510928941,
title = "Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: A reaffirmation",
abstract = "Morphologic assessment of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus, despite limitations, remains the basis of treatment. We rigorously tested modified 1988 criteria, assessing intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Participants submitted slides of Barrett mucosa negative (BE) and indefinite (IND) for dysplasia, with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and with carcinoma. Two hundred fifty slides were divided into 2 groups. The first 125 slides were reviewed, without knowledge of the prior diagnoses, on 2 occasions by 12 gastrointestinal pathologists without prior discussion of criteria. Results were analyzed by κ statistics, which correct for agreement by chance. A consensus meeting was then held, establishing, by group review of the index 125 slides, the criteria outlined herein. The second 125-slide set was then reviewed twice by each of the same 12 pathologists, and follow-up κ statistics were calculated. When statistical analysis was performed using 2 broad diagnostic categories (BE, IND, and LG v HG and carcinoma), intraobserver agreement was near perfect both before and after the consensus meeting (mean κ = 0.82 and 0.80). Interobserver agreement was substantial (κ = 0.66) and improved after the consensus meeting (κ = 0.70; P = .02). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 clinically relevant separations (BE; IND and LGD; HGD; carcinoma), mean intraobserver κ improved from 0.64 to 0.68 (both substantial) after the consensus meeting, and mean interobserver κ improved from 0.43 to 0.46 (both moderate agreement). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 diagnostic categories that required distinction between LGD and IND (BE; IND; LGD; HGD and carcinoma), the pre-consensus meeting mean intraobserver κ was 0.60 (substantial agreement), improving to 0.65 after the meeting (P < .05). Interobserver agreement was poorer, with premeeting and postmeeting mean values unchanged (κ = 0.43 at both times). Interobserver agreement was substantial for HGD/carcinoma (κ = 0.65), moderate to substantial for BE (κ = 0.58), fair for LGD (κ = 0.32), and slight for IND (κ = 0.15). The intraobserver reproducibility for the diagnosis of dysplasia in BE was substantial. Interobserver reproducibility was substantial at the ends of the spectrum (BE and HG/carcinoma) but slight for IND. Both intraobserver and interobserver variation improved overall after the application of a modified grading system developed at a consensus conference but not in separation of BE, IND, and LGD. The criteria used by the group are presented.",
keywords = "Barrett esophagus, Dysplasia, Interobserver, Variability",
author = "Elizabeth Montgomery and Bronner, {Mary P.} and Goldblum, {John R.} and Greenson, {Joel K.} and Haber, {Marian M.} and John Hart and Lamps, {Laura W.} and Lauwers, {Gregory Y.} and Lazenby, {Audrey J.} and Lewin, {David N.} and Robert, {Marie E.} and Toledano, {Alicia Y.} and Yu Shyr and Kay Washington",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1053/hupa.2001.23510",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "368--378",
journal = "Human Pathology",
issn = "0046-8177",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus

T2 - A reaffirmation

AU - Montgomery, Elizabeth

AU - Bronner, Mary P.

AU - Goldblum, John R.

AU - Greenson, Joel K.

AU - Haber, Marian M.

AU - Hart, John

AU - Lamps, Laura W.

AU - Lauwers, Gregory Y.

AU - Lazenby, Audrey J.

AU - Lewin, David N.

AU - Robert, Marie E.

AU - Toledano, Alicia Y.

AU - Shyr, Yu

AU - Washington, Kay

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Morphologic assessment of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus, despite limitations, remains the basis of treatment. We rigorously tested modified 1988 criteria, assessing intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Participants submitted slides of Barrett mucosa negative (BE) and indefinite (IND) for dysplasia, with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and with carcinoma. Two hundred fifty slides were divided into 2 groups. The first 125 slides were reviewed, without knowledge of the prior diagnoses, on 2 occasions by 12 gastrointestinal pathologists without prior discussion of criteria. Results were analyzed by κ statistics, which correct for agreement by chance. A consensus meeting was then held, establishing, by group review of the index 125 slides, the criteria outlined herein. The second 125-slide set was then reviewed twice by each of the same 12 pathologists, and follow-up κ statistics were calculated. When statistical analysis was performed using 2 broad diagnostic categories (BE, IND, and LG v HG and carcinoma), intraobserver agreement was near perfect both before and after the consensus meeting (mean κ = 0.82 and 0.80). Interobserver agreement was substantial (κ = 0.66) and improved after the consensus meeting (κ = 0.70; P = .02). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 clinically relevant separations (BE; IND and LGD; HGD; carcinoma), mean intraobserver κ improved from 0.64 to 0.68 (both substantial) after the consensus meeting, and mean interobserver κ improved from 0.43 to 0.46 (both moderate agreement). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 diagnostic categories that required distinction between LGD and IND (BE; IND; LGD; HGD and carcinoma), the pre-consensus meeting mean intraobserver κ was 0.60 (substantial agreement), improving to 0.65 after the meeting (P < .05). Interobserver agreement was poorer, with premeeting and postmeeting mean values unchanged (κ = 0.43 at both times). Interobserver agreement was substantial for HGD/carcinoma (κ = 0.65), moderate to substantial for BE (κ = 0.58), fair for LGD (κ = 0.32), and slight for IND (κ = 0.15). The intraobserver reproducibility for the diagnosis of dysplasia in BE was substantial. Interobserver reproducibility was substantial at the ends of the spectrum (BE and HG/carcinoma) but slight for IND. Both intraobserver and interobserver variation improved overall after the application of a modified grading system developed at a consensus conference but not in separation of BE, IND, and LGD. The criteria used by the group are presented.

AB - Morphologic assessment of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus, despite limitations, remains the basis of treatment. We rigorously tested modified 1988 criteria, assessing intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility. Participants submitted slides of Barrett mucosa negative (BE) and indefinite (IND) for dysplasia, with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and with carcinoma. Two hundred fifty slides were divided into 2 groups. The first 125 slides were reviewed, without knowledge of the prior diagnoses, on 2 occasions by 12 gastrointestinal pathologists without prior discussion of criteria. Results were analyzed by κ statistics, which correct for agreement by chance. A consensus meeting was then held, establishing, by group review of the index 125 slides, the criteria outlined herein. The second 125-slide set was then reviewed twice by each of the same 12 pathologists, and follow-up κ statistics were calculated. When statistical analysis was performed using 2 broad diagnostic categories (BE, IND, and LG v HG and carcinoma), intraobserver agreement was near perfect both before and after the consensus meeting (mean κ = 0.82 and 0.80). Interobserver agreement was substantial (κ = 0.66) and improved after the consensus meeting (κ = 0.70; P = .02). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 clinically relevant separations (BE; IND and LGD; HGD; carcinoma), mean intraobserver κ improved from 0.64 to 0.68 (both substantial) after the consensus meeting, and mean interobserver κ improved from 0.43 to 0.46 (both moderate agreement). When statistical analysis was performed using 4 diagnostic categories that required distinction between LGD and IND (BE; IND; LGD; HGD and carcinoma), the pre-consensus meeting mean intraobserver κ was 0.60 (substantial agreement), improving to 0.65 after the meeting (P < .05). Interobserver agreement was poorer, with premeeting and postmeeting mean values unchanged (κ = 0.43 at both times). Interobserver agreement was substantial for HGD/carcinoma (κ = 0.65), moderate to substantial for BE (κ = 0.58), fair for LGD (κ = 0.32), and slight for IND (κ = 0.15). The intraobserver reproducibility for the diagnosis of dysplasia in BE was substantial. Interobserver reproducibility was substantial at the ends of the spectrum (BE and HG/carcinoma) but slight for IND. Both intraobserver and interobserver variation improved overall after the application of a modified grading system developed at a consensus conference but not in separation of BE, IND, and LGD. The criteria used by the group are presented.

KW - Barrett esophagus

KW - Dysplasia

KW - Interobserver

KW - Variability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035028767&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035028767&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/hupa.2001.23510

DO - 10.1053/hupa.2001.23510

M3 - Article

C2 - 11331953

AN - SCOPUS:0035028767

VL - 32

SP - 368

EP - 378

JO - Human Pathology

JF - Human Pathology

SN - 0046-8177

IS - 4

ER -