Cargando…
Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go?
The focus on lymph node metastases (LNM) as the most important prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC) has been challenged by the finding that other types of locoregional spread, including tumor deposits (TDs), extramural venous invasion (EMVI), and perineural invasion (PNI), also have signific...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8724135/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34480612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-021-03197-0 |
_version_ | 1784625861321818112 |
---|---|
author | Brouwer, Nelleke P. M. Lord, A. C. Terlizzo, M. Bateman, A. C. West, N. P. Goldin, R. Martinez, A. Wong, N. A. C. S. Novelli, M. Nagtegaal, I. D. Brown, G. |
author_facet | Brouwer, Nelleke P. M. Lord, A. C. Terlizzo, M. Bateman, A. C. West, N. P. Goldin, R. Martinez, A. Wong, N. A. C. S. Novelli, M. Nagtegaal, I. D. Brown, G. |
author_sort | Brouwer, Nelleke P. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The focus on lymph node metastases (LNM) as the most important prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC) has been challenged by the finding that other types of locoregional spread, including tumor deposits (TDs), extramural venous invasion (EMVI), and perineural invasion (PNI), also have significant impact. However, there are concerns about interobserver variation when differentiating between these features. Therefore, this study analyzed interobserver agreement between pathologists when assessing routine tumor nodules based on TNM 8. Electronic slides of 50 tumor nodules that were not treated with neoadjuvant therapy were reviewed by 8 gastrointestinal pathologists. They were asked to classify each nodule as TD, LNM, EMVI, or PNI, and to list which histological discriminatory features were present. There was overall agreement of 73.5% (κ 0.38, 95%-CI 0.33–0.43) if a nodal versus non-nodal classification was used, and 52.2% (κ 0.27, 95%-CI 0.23–0.31) if EMVI and PNI were classified separately. The interobserver agreement varied significantly between discriminatory features from κ 0.64 (95%-CI 0.58–0.70) for roundness to κ 0.26 (95%-CI 0.12–0.41) for a lone arteriole sign, and the presence of discriminatory features did not always correlate with the final classification. Since extranodal pathways of spread are prognostically relevant, classification of tumor nodules is important. There is currently no evidence for the prognostic relevance of the origin of TD, and although some histopathological characteristics showed good interobserver agreement, these are often non-specific. To optimize interobserver agreement, we recommend a binary classification of nodal versus extranodal tumor nodules which is based on prognostic evidence and yields good overall agreement. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00428-021-03197-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8724135 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87241352022-01-13 Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? Brouwer, Nelleke P. M. Lord, A. C. Terlizzo, M. Bateman, A. C. West, N. P. Goldin, R. Martinez, A. Wong, N. A. C. S. Novelli, M. Nagtegaal, I. D. Brown, G. Virchows Arch Original Article The focus on lymph node metastases (LNM) as the most important prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC) has been challenged by the finding that other types of locoregional spread, including tumor deposits (TDs), extramural venous invasion (EMVI), and perineural invasion (PNI), also have significant impact. However, there are concerns about interobserver variation when differentiating between these features. Therefore, this study analyzed interobserver agreement between pathologists when assessing routine tumor nodules based on TNM 8. Electronic slides of 50 tumor nodules that were not treated with neoadjuvant therapy were reviewed by 8 gastrointestinal pathologists. They were asked to classify each nodule as TD, LNM, EMVI, or PNI, and to list which histological discriminatory features were present. There was overall agreement of 73.5% (κ 0.38, 95%-CI 0.33–0.43) if a nodal versus non-nodal classification was used, and 52.2% (κ 0.27, 95%-CI 0.23–0.31) if EMVI and PNI were classified separately. The interobserver agreement varied significantly between discriminatory features from κ 0.64 (95%-CI 0.58–0.70) for roundness to κ 0.26 (95%-CI 0.12–0.41) for a lone arteriole sign, and the presence of discriminatory features did not always correlate with the final classification. Since extranodal pathways of spread are prognostically relevant, classification of tumor nodules is important. There is currently no evidence for the prognostic relevance of the origin of TD, and although some histopathological characteristics showed good interobserver agreement, these are often non-specific. To optimize interobserver agreement, we recommend a binary classification of nodal versus extranodal tumor nodules which is based on prognostic evidence and yields good overall agreement. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00428-021-03197-0. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-09-04 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8724135/ /pubmed/34480612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-021-03197-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Brouwer, Nelleke P. M. Lord, A. C. Terlizzo, M. Bateman, A. C. West, N. P. Goldin, R. Martinez, A. Wong, N. A. C. S. Novelli, M. Nagtegaal, I. D. Brown, G. Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? |
title | Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? |
title_full | Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? |
title_fullStr | Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? |
title_full_unstemmed | Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? |
title_short | Interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? |
title_sort | interobserver variation in the classification of tumor deposits in rectal cancer—is the use of histopathological characteristics the way to go? |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8724135/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34480612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-021-03197-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brouwernellekepm interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT lordac interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT terlizzom interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT batemanac interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT westnp interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT goldinr interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT martineza interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT wongnacs interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT novellim interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT nagtegaalid interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo AT browng interobservervariationintheclassificationoftumordepositsinrectalcanceristheuseofhistopathologicalcharacteristicsthewaytogo |