沉积物之争再起波澜:在区分小肠神经内分泌肿瘤的肿瘤沉积物和结节转移方面,观察者之间的意见基本一致。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.5858/arpa.2023-0169-OA
Raul S Gonzalez, Stefano La Rosa, Changqing Ma, Alexandros D Polydorides, Chanjuan Shi, Zhaohai Yang, Brian Cox, Dipti M Karamchandani
{"title":"沉积物之争再起波澜:在区分小肠神经内分泌肿瘤的肿瘤沉积物和结节转移方面,观察者之间的意见基本一致。","authors":"Raul S Gonzalez, Stefano La Rosa, Changqing Ma, Alexandros D Polydorides, Chanjuan Shi, Zhaohai Yang, Brian Cox, Dipti M Karamchandani","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0169-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Recent data suggest mesenteric tumor deposits (MTDs) indicate poor prognosis in small bowel well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (SB-NETs), including compared to positive lymph nodes, making their distinction crucial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To study interobserver agreement in distinguishing SB-NET MTDs from positive nodes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Virtual slides from 36 locally metastatic SB-NET foci were shared among 7 gastrointestinal pathologists, who interpreted each as an MTD or a positive node. Observers ranked their 5 preferred choices among a supplied list of potentially useful histologic features, for both options. Diagnostic opinions were compared using Fleiss multirater and Cohen weighted κ analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preferred criteria for MTD included irregular shape (n = 7, top choice for 5), perineural invasion/nerve entrapment (n = 7, top choice for 2), encased thick-walled vessels (n = 7), and prominent fibrosis (n = 6). Preferred criteria for positive nodes included peripheral lymphoid follicles (n = 6, top choice for 4), round shape (n = 7, top choice for 2), peripheral lymphocyte rim (n = 7, top choice for 1), subcapsular sinuses (n = 7), and a capsule (n = 6). Among 36 foci, 10 (28%) each were unanimously diagnosed as MTD or positive node. For 13 foci (36%), there was a diagnosis favored by most observers (5 or 6 of 7): positive node in 8, MTD in 5. Only 3 cases (8%) had a near-even (4:3) split. Overall agreement was substantial (κ = .64, P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Substantial interobserver agreement exists for distinguishing SB-NET MTDs from lymph node metastases. Favored histologic criteria in making the distinction include irregular shape and nerve/vessel entrapment for MTD, and peripheral lymphocytes/lymphoid follicles and round shape for positive nodes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8305,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"581-587"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Debating Deposits, Redux: Substantial Interobserver Agreement Exists in Distinguishing Tumor Deposits From Nodal Metastases in Small Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumors.\",\"authors\":\"Raul S Gonzalez, Stefano La Rosa, Changqing Ma, Alexandros D Polydorides, Chanjuan Shi, Zhaohai Yang, Brian Cox, Dipti M Karamchandani\",\"doi\":\"10.5858/arpa.2023-0169-OA\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Recent data suggest mesenteric tumor deposits (MTDs) indicate poor prognosis in small bowel well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (SB-NETs), including compared to positive lymph nodes, making their distinction crucial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To study interobserver agreement in distinguishing SB-NET MTDs from positive nodes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Virtual slides from 36 locally metastatic SB-NET foci were shared among 7 gastrointestinal pathologists, who interpreted each as an MTD or a positive node. Observers ranked their 5 preferred choices among a supplied list of potentially useful histologic features, for both options. Diagnostic opinions were compared using Fleiss multirater and Cohen weighted κ analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preferred criteria for MTD included irregular shape (n = 7, top choice for 5), perineural invasion/nerve entrapment (n = 7, top choice for 2), encased thick-walled vessels (n = 7), and prominent fibrosis (n = 6). Preferred criteria for positive nodes included peripheral lymphoid follicles (n = 6, top choice for 4), round shape (n = 7, top choice for 2), peripheral lymphocyte rim (n = 7, top choice for 1), subcapsular sinuses (n = 7), and a capsule (n = 6). Among 36 foci, 10 (28%) each were unanimously diagnosed as MTD or positive node. For 13 foci (36%), there was a diagnosis favored by most observers (5 or 6 of 7): positive node in 8, MTD in 5. Only 3 cases (8%) had a near-even (4:3) split. Overall agreement was substantial (κ = .64, P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Substantial interobserver agreement exists for distinguishing SB-NET MTDs from lymph node metastases. Favored histologic criteria in making the distinction include irregular shape and nerve/vessel entrapment for MTD, and peripheral lymphocytes/lymphoid follicles and round shape for positive nodes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"581-587\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0169-OA\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0169-OA","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最近的数据表明,肠系膜肿瘤沉积(MTDs)预示着小肠分化良好的神经内分泌肿瘤(SB-NETs)预后不良,包括与阳性淋巴结相比,因此区分它们至关重要:研究区分SB-NET MTD和阳性淋巴结的观察者间一致性:设计:来自 36 个局部转移性 SB-NET 病灶的虚拟切片由 7 位胃肠道病理学家共享,他们将每个病灶解释为 MTD 或阳性结节。在提供的潜在有用组织学特征列表中,观察者为这两个选项排列出 5 个首选项。采用弗莱斯多侧分析和科恩加权κ分析对诊断意见进行比较:MTD的首选标准包括形状不规则(7人,5人首选)、神经周围侵犯/神经卡压(7人,2人首选)、包裹的厚壁血管(7人)和突出的纤维化(6人)。阳性结节的首选标准包括外周淋巴滤泡(6 个,首选 4 个)、圆形(7 个,首选 2 个)、外周淋巴细胞边缘(7 个,首选 1 个)、囊下窦(7 个)和囊肿(6 个)。在 36 个病灶中,有 10 个病灶(28%)被一致诊断为 MTD 或阳性结节。对于 13 个病灶(36%),大多数观察者(7 人中的 5 或 6 人)倾向于一种诊断:8 个为阳性结节,5 个为 MTD。只有 3 个病例(8%)的诊断结果接近平均(4:3)。总体一致性很高(κ = .64, P < .001):结论:在区分 SB-NET MTD 和淋巴结转移方面,观察者之间存在很大的一致性。区分的首选组织学标准包括 MTD 的不规则形状和神经/血管夹层,以及阳性结节的外周淋巴细胞/淋巴滤泡和圆形。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Debating Deposits, Redux: Substantial Interobserver Agreement Exists in Distinguishing Tumor Deposits From Nodal Metastases in Small Bowel Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Context: Recent data suggest mesenteric tumor deposits (MTDs) indicate poor prognosis in small bowel well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (SB-NETs), including compared to positive lymph nodes, making their distinction crucial.

Objective: To study interobserver agreement in distinguishing SB-NET MTDs from positive nodes.

Design: Virtual slides from 36 locally metastatic SB-NET foci were shared among 7 gastrointestinal pathologists, who interpreted each as an MTD or a positive node. Observers ranked their 5 preferred choices among a supplied list of potentially useful histologic features, for both options. Diagnostic opinions were compared using Fleiss multirater and Cohen weighted κ analyses.

Results: Preferred criteria for MTD included irregular shape (n = 7, top choice for 5), perineural invasion/nerve entrapment (n = 7, top choice for 2), encased thick-walled vessels (n = 7), and prominent fibrosis (n = 6). Preferred criteria for positive nodes included peripheral lymphoid follicles (n = 6, top choice for 4), round shape (n = 7, top choice for 2), peripheral lymphocyte rim (n = 7, top choice for 1), subcapsular sinuses (n = 7), and a capsule (n = 6). Among 36 foci, 10 (28%) each were unanimously diagnosed as MTD or positive node. For 13 foci (36%), there was a diagnosis favored by most observers (5 or 6 of 7): positive node in 8, MTD in 5. Only 3 cases (8%) had a near-even (4:3) split. Overall agreement was substantial (κ = .64, P < .001).

Conclusions: Substantial interobserver agreement exists for distinguishing SB-NET MTDs from lymph node metastases. Favored histologic criteria in making the distinction include irregular shape and nerve/vessel entrapment for MTD, and peripheral lymphocytes/lymphoid follicles and round shape for positive nodes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
369
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Welcome to the website of the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine (APLM). This monthly, peer-reviewed journal of the College of American Pathologists offers global reach and highest measured readership among pathology journals. Published since 1926, ARCHIVES was voted in 2009 the only pathology journal among the top 100 most influential journals of the past 100 years by the BioMedical and Life Sciences Division of the Special Libraries Association. Online access to the full-text and PDF files of APLM articles is free.
期刊最新文献
New Entities and Concepts in Salivary Gland Tumor Pathology: The Role of Molecular Alterations. Update on Sinonasal Tract Malignancies: Advances in Diagnostic Modalities. Update on Salivary Gland Fine-Needle Aspiration and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology. BRAF Exon 15 Mutations in the Evaluation of Well-Differentiated Epithelial Nephroblastic Neoplasms in Children: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group Study AREN03B2. Neoplastic Progression in Intraductal Papillary Neoplasm of the Bile Duct.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1