Adherence to pre-set benchmark quality criteria to qualify as expert assessor of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus biopsies - towards digital review of Barrett's esophagus.
Barrett’s esophagus
benchmark quality criteria
consensus gold standard diagnosis
digital microscopy
observer agreement
review panel
whole slide imaging
Journal
United European gastroenterology journal
ISSN: 2050-6406
Titre abrégé: United European Gastroenterol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
received:
15
02
2019
accepted:
07
05
2019
entrez:
21
8
2019
pubmed:
21
8
2019
medline:
21
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dysplasia assessment of Barrett's esophagus biopsies is associated with low observer agreement; guidelines advise expert review. We have developed a web-based review panel for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus biopsies. The purpose of this study was to test if 10 gastrointestinal pathologists working at Dutch Barrett's esophagus expert centres met pre-set benchmark scores for quality criteria. Ten gastrointestinal pathologists twice assessed 60 digitalized Barrett's esophagus cases, enriched for dysplasia; then randomised (7520 assessments). We tested predefined benchmark quality criteria: (a) percentage of 'indefinite for dysplasia' diagnoses, benchmark score ≤14% for all cases, ≤16% for dysplastic subset, (b) intra-observer agreement; benchmark score ≥0.66/≥0.39, (c) percentage agreement with 'gold standard diagnosis'; benchmark score ≥82%/≥73%, (d) proportion of cases with high-grade dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus; benchmark score ≤1/78 (≤1.28%) assessments for dysplastic subset. Gastrointestinal pathologists had seven years' Barrett's esophagus-experience, handling seven Barrett's esophagus-cases weekly. Three met stringent benchmark scores; all cases and dysplastic subset, three met extended benchmark scores. Four pathologists lacked one quality criterion to meet benchmark scores. Predefined benchmark scores for expert assessment of Barrett's esophagus dysplasia biopsies are stringent and met by some gastrointestinal pathologists. The majority of assessors however, only showed limited deviation from benchmark scores. We expect further training with group discussions will lead to adherence of all participating gastrointestinal pathologists to quality criteria, and therefore eligible to join the review panel.
Sections du résumé
Background
Dysplasia assessment of Barrett's esophagus biopsies is associated with low observer agreement; guidelines advise expert review. We have developed a web-based review panel for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus biopsies.
Objective
The purpose of this study was to test if 10 gastrointestinal pathologists working at Dutch Barrett's esophagus expert centres met pre-set benchmark scores for quality criteria.
Methods
Ten gastrointestinal pathologists twice assessed 60 digitalized Barrett's esophagus cases, enriched for dysplasia; then randomised (7520 assessments). We tested predefined benchmark quality criteria: (a) percentage of 'indefinite for dysplasia' diagnoses, benchmark score ≤14% for all cases, ≤16% for dysplastic subset, (b) intra-observer agreement; benchmark score ≥0.66/≥0.39, (c) percentage agreement with 'gold standard diagnosis'; benchmark score ≥82%/≥73%, (d) proportion of cases with high-grade dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus; benchmark score ≤1/78 (≤1.28%) assessments for dysplastic subset.
Results
Gastrointestinal pathologists had seven years' Barrett's esophagus-experience, handling seven Barrett's esophagus-cases weekly. Three met stringent benchmark scores; all cases and dysplastic subset, three met extended benchmark scores. Four pathologists lacked one quality criterion to meet benchmark scores.
Conclusion
Predefined benchmark scores for expert assessment of Barrett's esophagus dysplasia biopsies are stringent and met by some gastrointestinal pathologists. The majority of assessors however, only showed limited deviation from benchmark scores. We expect further training with group discussions will lead to adherence of all participating gastrointestinal pathologists to quality criteria, and therefore eligible to join the review panel.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31428413
doi: 10.1177/2050640619853441
pii: 10.1177_2050640619853441
pmc: PMC6683647
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Pagination
889-896Références
Gastroenterology. 2013 Jul;145(1):96-104
pubmed: 23542068
Virchows Arch. 2003 Nov;443(5):602-8
pubmed: 14517678
Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Apr;67(4):604-9
pubmed: 18155214
Gastroenterology. 2011 Mar;140(3):1084-91
pubmed: 21376940
United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 Jul;6(6):830-837
pubmed: 30023060
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Mar;103(3):788-97
pubmed: 18341497
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan;111(1):30-50; quiz 51
pubmed: 26526079
Gut. 2015 May;64(5):700-6
pubmed: 25034523
Gut. 2014 Jan;63(1):7-42
pubmed: 24165758
Gut. 2000 Aug;47(2):251-5
pubmed: 10896917
Neth J Med. 2001 Jan;58(1):3-8
pubmed: 11137744
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Feb;73(2):195-203
pubmed: 21168835
Hum Pathol. 2001 Apr;32(4):368-78
pubmed: 11331953
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Apr;73(4):682-90
pubmed: 21292262
Hum Pathol. 1988 Feb;19(2):166-78
pubmed: 3343032
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 May;30(5):804-20
pubmed: 25612140
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jul;105(7):1523-30
pubmed: 20461069
Am J Clin Pathol. 1978 Jul;70(1):1-5
pubmed: 696666
Gastroenterology. 2017 Apr;152(5):993-1001.e1
pubmed: 28012849
J Pathol. 2000 Feb;190(2):177-83
pubmed: 10657016
Gut. 2016 Apr;65(4):555-62
pubmed: 25731874
Endoscopy. 2017 Feb;49(2):191-198
pubmed: 28122386
JAMA. 2014 Mar 26;311(12):1209-17
pubmed: 24668102
Gut. 1998 Aug;43(2):216-22
pubmed: 10189847
Histopathology. 2018 May;72(6):1015-1023
pubmed: 29314176
Dis Esophagus. 2017 Nov 1;30(11):1-7
pubmed: 28881901
Gut. 2011 Jun;60(6):765-73
pubmed: 21209124
Gut. 2016 Sep;65(9):1402-15
pubmed: 27261337
J Pathol. 1998 Feb;184(2):161-8
pubmed: 9602707