Interobserver variability and the effect of education in the histopathological diagnosis of differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia
until further notice
SourceModern Pathology, 26, 6, (2013), pp. 874-80
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
SubjectONCOL 1: Hereditary cancer and cancer-related syndromes; ONCOL 3: Translational research; ONCOL 5: Aetiology, screening and detection; ONCOL 5: Aetiology, screening and detection NCMLS 2: Immune Regulation
No published data concerning intraobserver and interobserver variability in the histopathological diagnosis of differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (DVIN) are available, although it is widely accepted to be a subtle and difficult histopathological diagnosis. In this study, the reproducibility of the histopathological diagnosis of DVIN is evaluated. Furthermore, we investigated the possible improvement of the reproducibility after providing guidelines with histological characteristics and tried to identify histological characteristics that are most important in the recognition of DVIN. A total number of 34 hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides were included in this study and were analyzed by six pathologists each with a different level of education. Slides were reviewed before and after studying a guideline with histological characteristics of DVIN. Kappa statistics were used to compare the interobserver variability. Pathologists with a substantial agreement were asked to rank items by usefulness in the recognition of DVIN. The interobserver agreement during the first session varied between 0.08 and 0.54, which slightly increased during the second session toward an agreement between -0.01 and 0.75. Pathologists specialized in gynecopathology reached a substantial agreement (kappa 0.75). The top five of criteria indicated to be the most useful in the diagnosis of DVIN included: atypical mitosis in the basal layer, basal cellular atypia, dyskeratosis, prominent nucleoli and elongation and anastomosis of rete ridges. In conclusion, the histopathological diagnosis of DVIN is difficult, which is expressed by low interobserver agreement. Only in experienced pathologists with training in gynecopathology, kappa values reached a substantial agreement after providing strict guidelines. Therefore, it should be considered that specimens with an unclear diagnosis and/or clinical suspicion for DVIN should be revised by a pathologist specialized in gynecopathology. When adhering to suggested criteria the diagnosis of DVIN can be made easier.
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.