{"title":"验证新型胆汁细胞学评分系统","authors":"Chie Hayakawa CT, IAC, Masahiro Hoshikawa MD, Johji Imura MD, FIAC, Takahiko Ueno PhD, Junki Koike MD","doi":"10.1002/dc.25358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The scoring system for bile cytology (SSBC) aims to improve bile cytology diagnostic accuracy. Here, the practicality of SSBC was verified by multiple cytotechnologists.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Bile cytological specimens were evaluated by 24 cytotechnologists using SSBC. The samples were assessed before using the SSBC (first-time assessment) according to three categories: benign, indeterminate, and malignant. A first scoring evaluation (FSE) was then performed using SSBC; each item in the scoring system was classified as present or absent. After distributing an instruction sheet with diagnostic criteria, a second scoring evaluation (SSE) was performed using SSBC. Each method was evaluated using diagnostic accuracy and interobserver and intraobserver agreement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Several samples were assessed as indeterminate in the first-time assessment. Although the specificity of the SSE improved, the sensitivity and accuracy decreased compared with those of the FSE. The overall interobserver agreement was fair for all parameters, including abnormal chromatin, irregular internuclear distances, irregularly overlapped nuclei, irregular cluster margins, and final evaluation in the FSE and SSE. The final evaluation by histological type exhibited slight agreement for well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma and almost perfect agreement for poorly differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma in the FSE and SSE. For moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma, agreement was moderate in the FSE and fair in the SSE. For cholangitis, a slight agreement was observed in the FSE, which improved to fair in the SSE.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Although the SSBC is expected to improve specificity, there exists ambiguity regarding SSBC criteria and interindividual assessment differences. Therefore, the objective assessment method should be revised.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11349,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","volume":"52 9","pages":"485-498"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verifying a novel bile cytology scoring system\",\"authors\":\"Chie Hayakawa CT, IAC, Masahiro Hoshikawa MD, Johji Imura MD, FIAC, Takahiko Ueno PhD, Junki Koike MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/dc.25358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The scoring system for bile cytology (SSBC) aims to improve bile cytology diagnostic accuracy. Here, the practicality of SSBC was verified by multiple cytotechnologists.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Bile cytological specimens were evaluated by 24 cytotechnologists using SSBC. The samples were assessed before using the SSBC (first-time assessment) according to three categories: benign, indeterminate, and malignant. A first scoring evaluation (FSE) was then performed using SSBC; each item in the scoring system was classified as present or absent. After distributing an instruction sheet with diagnostic criteria, a second scoring evaluation (SSE) was performed using SSBC. Each method was evaluated using diagnostic accuracy and interobserver and intraobserver agreement.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Several samples were assessed as indeterminate in the first-time assessment. Although the specificity of the SSE improved, the sensitivity and accuracy decreased compared with those of the FSE. The overall interobserver agreement was fair for all parameters, including abnormal chromatin, irregular internuclear distances, irregularly overlapped nuclei, irregular cluster margins, and final evaluation in the FSE and SSE. The final evaluation by histological type exhibited slight agreement for well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma and almost perfect agreement for poorly differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma in the FSE and SSE. For moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma, agreement was moderate in the FSE and fair in the SSE. For cholangitis, a slight agreement was observed in the FSE, which improved to fair in the SSE.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although the SSBC is expected to improve specificity, there exists ambiguity regarding SSBC criteria and interindividual assessment differences. Therefore, the objective assessment method should be revised.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic Cytopathology\",\"volume\":\"52 9\",\"pages\":\"485-498\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic Cytopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dc.25358\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dc.25358","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The scoring system for bile cytology (SSBC) aims to improve bile cytology diagnostic accuracy. Here, the practicality of SSBC was verified by multiple cytotechnologists.
Methods
Bile cytological specimens were evaluated by 24 cytotechnologists using SSBC. The samples were assessed before using the SSBC (first-time assessment) according to three categories: benign, indeterminate, and malignant. A first scoring evaluation (FSE) was then performed using SSBC; each item in the scoring system was classified as present or absent. After distributing an instruction sheet with diagnostic criteria, a second scoring evaluation (SSE) was performed using SSBC. Each method was evaluated using diagnostic accuracy and interobserver and intraobserver agreement.
Results
Several samples were assessed as indeterminate in the first-time assessment. Although the specificity of the SSE improved, the sensitivity and accuracy decreased compared with those of the FSE. The overall interobserver agreement was fair for all parameters, including abnormal chromatin, irregular internuclear distances, irregularly overlapped nuclei, irregular cluster margins, and final evaluation in the FSE and SSE. The final evaluation by histological type exhibited slight agreement for well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma and almost perfect agreement for poorly differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma in the FSE and SSE. For moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma, agreement was moderate in the FSE and fair in the SSE. For cholangitis, a slight agreement was observed in the FSE, which improved to fair in the SSE.
Conclusions
Although the SSBC is expected to improve specificity, there exists ambiguity regarding SSBC criteria and interindividual assessment differences. Therefore, the objective assessment method should be revised.
期刊介绍:
Diagnostic Cytopathology is intended to provide a forum for the exchange of information in the field of cytopathology, with special emphasis on the practical, clinical aspects of the discipline. The editors invite original scientific articles, as well as special review articles, feature articles, and letters to the editor, from laboratory professionals engaged in the practice of cytopathology. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the basis of scientific merit, practical significance, and suitability for publication in a journal dedicated to this discipline. Original articles can be considered only with the understanding that they have never been published before and that they have not been submitted for simultaneous review to another publication.