Dilek Taze, Arundhati Chakrabarty, Ranjana Venkateswaran, Collette Hartley, Charlotte Harden, Ann Wendy Morgan, Sarah Louise Mackie, Kathryn Jane Griffin
{"title":"Histopathology reporting of temporal artery biopsy specimens for giant cell arteritis: results of a modified Delphi study.","authors":"Dilek Taze, Arundhati Chakrabarty, Ranjana Venkateswaran, Collette Hartley, Charlotte Harden, Ann Wendy Morgan, Sarah Louise Mackie, Kathryn Jane Griffin","doi":"10.1136/jcp-2023-208810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is regarded as the gold-standard test in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). There is a lack of agreement among experienced pathologists regarding the diagnostic features and classification of inflammation observed in TAB sections in the diagnosis of GCA.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this research study was to establish consensus on the key parameters which should be included in a standardised reporting proforma for TAB specimens. We specifically investigated factors pertaining to clinical information, specimen handling and microscopic pathological features.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A modified Delphi process, comprising three survey rounds and three virtual consensus group meetings, was undertaken by 13 UK-based pathology or ophthalmology consultants, with a 100% response rate across the three rounds. Initial statements were formulated after a literature review and participants were asked to rate their agreement using a nine-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of ≥70% and individual feedback was provided after each round, together with data on the distribution of group responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 67 statements reached consensus and 17 statements did not. The participants agreed on the core microscopic features to be included in a pathology report and felt that a proforma would facilitate consistent reporting practices.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our work revealed uncertainty surrounding the correlation between clinical parameters (eg, laboratory markers of inflammation and steroid therapy duration) and microscopic findings, and we propose areas for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":" ","pages":"464-470"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11228225/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp-2023-208810","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is regarded as the gold-standard test in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). There is a lack of agreement among experienced pathologists regarding the diagnostic features and classification of inflammation observed in TAB sections in the diagnosis of GCA.
Aims: The aim of this research study was to establish consensus on the key parameters which should be included in a standardised reporting proforma for TAB specimens. We specifically investigated factors pertaining to clinical information, specimen handling and microscopic pathological features.
Methods: A modified Delphi process, comprising three survey rounds and three virtual consensus group meetings, was undertaken by 13 UK-based pathology or ophthalmology consultants, with a 100% response rate across the three rounds. Initial statements were formulated after a literature review and participants were asked to rate their agreement using a nine-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of ≥70% and individual feedback was provided after each round, together with data on the distribution of group responses.
Results: Overall, 67 statements reached consensus and 17 statements did not. The participants agreed on the core microscopic features to be included in a pathology report and felt that a proforma would facilitate consistent reporting practices.
Conclusions: Our work revealed uncertainty surrounding the correlation between clinical parameters (eg, laboratory markers of inflammation and steroid therapy duration) and microscopic findings, and we propose areas for future research.