RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Performance of gastrointestinal pathologists within a national digital review panel for Barrett’s oesophagus in the Netherlands: results of 80 prospective biopsy reviews
JF Journal of Clinical Pathology
JO J Clin Pathol
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Association of Clinical Pathologists
SP 48
OP 52
DO 10.1136/jclinpath-2020-206511
VO 74
IS 1
A1 Klaver, Esther
A1 van der Wel, Myrtle
A1 Duits, Lucas
A1 Pouw, Roos
A1 Seldenrijk, Kees
A1 Offerhaus, Johan
A1 Visser, Mike
A1 ten Kate, Fiebo
A1 Biermann, Katharina
A1 Brosens, Lodewijk
A1 Doukas, Michael
A1 Huysentruyt, Clément
A1 Karrenbeld, Arend
A1 Kats-Ugurlu, Gursah
A1 van der Laan, Jaap
A1 van Lijnschoten, Ineke
A1 Moll, Freek
A1 Ooms, Ariadne
A1 Tijssen, Jan
A1 Meijer, Sybren
A1 Bergman, Jacques
YR 2021
UL http://jcp.bmj.com/content/74/1/48.abstract
AB Aims The histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight ‘core’ pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel.Methods Pathologists independently assessed digital slides in two phases. Both phases consisted of 40 cases, with a group discussion after phase I. For all cases, a previous consensus diagnosis made by five core pathologists was available, which was used as reference. The following criteria were used: (1) percentage of ‘indefinite for dysplasia’ diagnoses, (2) percentage agreement with consensus diagnosis and (3) proportion of cases with a consensus diagnosis of dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic. Benchmarks were based on scores of the core pathologists.Results After phase I, 1/7 pathologists met the benchmark score for all quality criteria, yet three pathologists only marginally failed the agreement with consensus diagnosis (score 68.3%, benchmark 69%). After a group discussion and phase II, 5/6 remaining aspirant panel members qualified with all scores within the benchmark range.Conclusions The Dutch BO review panel now consists of 14 pathologists, who—after structured assessments and group discussions—can be considered homogeneous in their review of biopsies with LGD.