Dysplasia in Gastric Mucosa and its Reporting Problems

BACKGROUND: The recognition, terminology used and histopathologic evaluation of two essential elements in gastric carcinogenesis, atrophy and dysplasia, are characterized by controversy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifteen cases, with slides and their histopathologic reports from the archive of the Laboratory of Pathology were studied for the diagnostic value, reporting of dysplasia, interobserver variability, the relation of dysplastic lesions with inflammation, atrophy and metaplasia. After retrospectively studying the histopathologic reports from the archive we distributed the cases according to endoscopic and histopathologic diagnosis, together with the reexamination of the slides. The comparison of the median values of the numeric variables was made with the Mann-Whitney test (non-parametric equivalent of the Student’s “t” test). RESULTS: The endoscopic clinical diagnosis were: malignancy/suspicious for malignancy 88 cases (76%) and non-neoplastic diagnosis (like ulcer or gastritis) 27 cases (24%). From the reexamination of the cases it resulted that there is no difference in reporting the malignancy, but there is a difference in the cases reported as dysplasia (p = 0.001) and negative for neoplasia (p = 0.063, borderline). CONCLUSION: Clinicians and pathologists can feel directly the discrepancy called “interobserver variability” and should be assured that the use of guidelines will cause a lowering of this variability.