Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists

Alp Usubutun, George L. Mutter, Arzu Saglam, Anil Dolgun, Eylem Akar Ozkan, Tan Ince, Aytekin Akyol, H. Dilek Bulbul, Zerrin Calay, Funda Eren, Derya Gumurdulu, A. Nihan Haberal, Sennur Ilvan, Seyda Karaveli, Meral Koyuncuoglu, Bahar Muezzinoglu, Kamil H. Muftuoglu, Necmettin Ozdemir, Ozlem Ozen, Sema BaykaraElif Pestereli, Emine Cagnur Ulukus, Osman Zekioglu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) applies specific diagnostic criteria to designate a monoclonal endometrial preinvasive glandular proliferation known from previous studies to confer a 45-fold increased risk for endometrial cancer. In this international study we estimate accuracy and precision of EIN diagnosis among 20 reviewing pathologists in different practice environments, and with differing levels of experience and training. Sixty-two endometrial biopsies diagnosed as benign, EIN, or adenocarcinoma by consensus of two expert subspecialty pathologists were used as a reference comparison to assess diagnostic accuracy of 20 reviewing pathologists. Interobserver reproducibility among the 20 reviewers provided a measure of diagnostic precision. Before evaluating cases, observers were self-trained by reviewing published textbook and/or online EIN diagnostic guidelines. Demographics of the reviewing pathologists, and their impressions regarding implementation of EIN terminology were recorded. Seventy-nine percent of the 20 reviewing pathologists' diagnoses were exactly concordant with the expert consensus (accuracy). The interobserver weighted κ values of 3-class EIN scheme (benign, EIN, carcinoma) diagnoses between expert consensus and each of reviewing pathologists averaged 0.72 (reproducibility, or precision). Reviewing pathologists demonstrated one of three diagnostic styles, which varied in the repertoire of diagnoses commonly used, and their nonrandom response to potentially confounding diagnostic features such as endometrial polyp, altered differentiation, background hormonal effects, and technically poor preparations. EIN diagnostic strategies can be learned and implemented from standard teaching materials with a high degree of reproducibility, but is impacted by the personal diagnostic style of each pathologist in responding to potential diagnostic confounders.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)877-884
Number of pages8
JournalModern Pathology
Volume25
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2012

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Teaching Materials
Textbooks
Pathologists
Carcinoma in Situ
Endometrial Neoplasms
Polyps
Terminology
Adenocarcinoma
Demography
Guidelines
Biopsy

Keywords

  • endometrial hyperplasia
  • endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia
  • reproducibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists. / Usubutun, Alp; Mutter, George L.; Saglam, Arzu; Dolgun, Anil; Ozkan, Eylem Akar; Ince, Tan; Akyol, Aytekin; Bulbul, H. Dilek; Calay, Zerrin; Eren, Funda; Gumurdulu, Derya; Haberal, A. Nihan; Ilvan, Sennur; Karaveli, Seyda; Koyuncuoglu, Meral; Muezzinoglu, Bahar; Muftuoglu, Kamil H.; Ozdemir, Necmettin; Ozen, Ozlem; Baykara, Sema; Pestereli, Elif; Ulukus, Emine Cagnur; Zekioglu, Osman.

In: Modern Pathology, Vol. 25, No. 6, 01.06.2012, p. 877-884.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Usubutun, A, Mutter, GL, Saglam, A, Dolgun, A, Ozkan, EA, Ince, T, Akyol, A, Bulbul, HD, Calay, Z, Eren, F, Gumurdulu, D, Haberal, AN, Ilvan, S, Karaveli, S, Koyuncuoglu, M, Muezzinoglu, B, Muftuoglu, KH, Ozdemir, N, Ozen, O, Baykara, S, Pestereli, E, Ulukus, EC & Zekioglu, O 2012, 'Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists', Modern Pathology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 877-884. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2011.220
Usubutun, Alp ; Mutter, George L. ; Saglam, Arzu ; Dolgun, Anil ; Ozkan, Eylem Akar ; Ince, Tan ; Akyol, Aytekin ; Bulbul, H. Dilek ; Calay, Zerrin ; Eren, Funda ; Gumurdulu, Derya ; Haberal, A. Nihan ; Ilvan, Sennur ; Karaveli, Seyda ; Koyuncuoglu, Meral ; Muezzinoglu, Bahar ; Muftuoglu, Kamil H. ; Ozdemir, Necmettin ; Ozen, Ozlem ; Baykara, Sema ; Pestereli, Elif ; Ulukus, Emine Cagnur ; Zekioglu, Osman. / Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists. In: Modern Pathology. 2012 ; Vol. 25, No. 6. pp. 877-884.
@article{5ab933d2b4754bd1aa1b7eda0e2ef2ff,
title = "Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists",
abstract = "Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) applies specific diagnostic criteria to designate a monoclonal endometrial preinvasive glandular proliferation known from previous studies to confer a 45-fold increased risk for endometrial cancer. In this international study we estimate accuracy and precision of EIN diagnosis among 20 reviewing pathologists in different practice environments, and with differing levels of experience and training. Sixty-two endometrial biopsies diagnosed as benign, EIN, or adenocarcinoma by consensus of two expert subspecialty pathologists were used as a reference comparison to assess diagnostic accuracy of 20 reviewing pathologists. Interobserver reproducibility among the 20 reviewers provided a measure of diagnostic precision. Before evaluating cases, observers were self-trained by reviewing published textbook and/or online EIN diagnostic guidelines. Demographics of the reviewing pathologists, and their impressions regarding implementation of EIN terminology were recorded. Seventy-nine percent of the 20 reviewing pathologists' diagnoses were exactly concordant with the expert consensus (accuracy). The interobserver weighted κ values of 3-class EIN scheme (benign, EIN, carcinoma) diagnoses between expert consensus and each of reviewing pathologists averaged 0.72 (reproducibility, or precision). Reviewing pathologists demonstrated one of three diagnostic styles, which varied in the repertoire of diagnoses commonly used, and their nonrandom response to potentially confounding diagnostic features such as endometrial polyp, altered differentiation, background hormonal effects, and technically poor preparations. EIN diagnostic strategies can be learned and implemented from standard teaching materials with a high degree of reproducibility, but is impacted by the personal diagnostic style of each pathologist in responding to potential diagnostic confounders.",
keywords = "endometrial hyperplasia, endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, reproducibility",
author = "Alp Usubutun and Mutter, {George L.} and Arzu Saglam and Anil Dolgun and Ozkan, {Eylem Akar} and Tan Ince and Aytekin Akyol and Bulbul, {H. Dilek} and Zerrin Calay and Funda Eren and Derya Gumurdulu and Haberal, {A. Nihan} and Sennur Ilvan and Seyda Karaveli and Meral Koyuncuoglu and Bahar Muezzinoglu and Muftuoglu, {Kamil H.} and Necmettin Ozdemir and Ozlem Ozen and Sema Baykara and Elif Pestereli and Ulukus, {Emine Cagnur} and Osman Zekioglu",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/modpathol.2011.220",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "877--884",
journal = "Modern Pathology",
issn = "0893-3952",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists

AU - Usubutun, Alp

AU - Mutter, George L.

AU - Saglam, Arzu

AU - Dolgun, Anil

AU - Ozkan, Eylem Akar

AU - Ince, Tan

AU - Akyol, Aytekin

AU - Bulbul, H. Dilek

AU - Calay, Zerrin

AU - Eren, Funda

AU - Gumurdulu, Derya

AU - Haberal, A. Nihan

AU - Ilvan, Sennur

AU - Karaveli, Seyda

AU - Koyuncuoglu, Meral

AU - Muezzinoglu, Bahar

AU - Muftuoglu, Kamil H.

AU - Ozdemir, Necmettin

AU - Ozen, Ozlem

AU - Baykara, Sema

AU - Pestereli, Elif

AU - Ulukus, Emine Cagnur

AU - Zekioglu, Osman

PY - 2012/6/1

Y1 - 2012/6/1

N2 - Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) applies specific diagnostic criteria to designate a monoclonal endometrial preinvasive glandular proliferation known from previous studies to confer a 45-fold increased risk for endometrial cancer. In this international study we estimate accuracy and precision of EIN diagnosis among 20 reviewing pathologists in different practice environments, and with differing levels of experience and training. Sixty-two endometrial biopsies diagnosed as benign, EIN, or adenocarcinoma by consensus of two expert subspecialty pathologists were used as a reference comparison to assess diagnostic accuracy of 20 reviewing pathologists. Interobserver reproducibility among the 20 reviewers provided a measure of diagnostic precision. Before evaluating cases, observers were self-trained by reviewing published textbook and/or online EIN diagnostic guidelines. Demographics of the reviewing pathologists, and their impressions regarding implementation of EIN terminology were recorded. Seventy-nine percent of the 20 reviewing pathologists' diagnoses were exactly concordant with the expert consensus (accuracy). The interobserver weighted κ values of 3-class EIN scheme (benign, EIN, carcinoma) diagnoses between expert consensus and each of reviewing pathologists averaged 0.72 (reproducibility, or precision). Reviewing pathologists demonstrated one of three diagnostic styles, which varied in the repertoire of diagnoses commonly used, and their nonrandom response to potentially confounding diagnostic features such as endometrial polyp, altered differentiation, background hormonal effects, and technically poor preparations. EIN diagnostic strategies can be learned and implemented from standard teaching materials with a high degree of reproducibility, but is impacted by the personal diagnostic style of each pathologist in responding to potential diagnostic confounders.

AB - Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) applies specific diagnostic criteria to designate a monoclonal endometrial preinvasive glandular proliferation known from previous studies to confer a 45-fold increased risk for endometrial cancer. In this international study we estimate accuracy and precision of EIN diagnosis among 20 reviewing pathologists in different practice environments, and with differing levels of experience and training. Sixty-two endometrial biopsies diagnosed as benign, EIN, or adenocarcinoma by consensus of two expert subspecialty pathologists were used as a reference comparison to assess diagnostic accuracy of 20 reviewing pathologists. Interobserver reproducibility among the 20 reviewers provided a measure of diagnostic precision. Before evaluating cases, observers were self-trained by reviewing published textbook and/or online EIN diagnostic guidelines. Demographics of the reviewing pathologists, and their impressions regarding implementation of EIN terminology were recorded. Seventy-nine percent of the 20 reviewing pathologists' diagnoses were exactly concordant with the expert consensus (accuracy). The interobserver weighted κ values of 3-class EIN scheme (benign, EIN, carcinoma) diagnoses between expert consensus and each of reviewing pathologists averaged 0.72 (reproducibility, or precision). Reviewing pathologists demonstrated one of three diagnostic styles, which varied in the repertoire of diagnoses commonly used, and their nonrandom response to potentially confounding diagnostic features such as endometrial polyp, altered differentiation, background hormonal effects, and technically poor preparations. EIN diagnostic strategies can be learned and implemented from standard teaching materials with a high degree of reproducibility, but is impacted by the personal diagnostic style of each pathologist in responding to potential diagnostic confounders.

KW - endometrial hyperplasia

KW - endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia

KW - reproducibility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861847901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861847901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/modpathol.2011.220

DO - 10.1038/modpathol.2011.220

M3 - Article

C2 - 22301705

AN - SCOPUS:84861847901

VL - 25

SP - 877

EP - 884

JO - Modern Pathology

JF - Modern Pathology

SN - 0893-3952

IS - 6

ER -