Morphological characteristics, classifications and difficulties in the use of diagnostic criteria for serrated lesions of the large intestine

Abstract: Introduction Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is the most common gastrointestinal neoplasm in the world, accounting for 15% of cancer-related deaths. This condition is related to different molecular pathways, among them the recently described serrated pathway, whose characteristic entities, serrated lesions, have undergone important changes in their names and diagnostic criteria in the past thirty years. The multiplicity of denominations and criteria over the last years may be responsible for the low interobserver concordance (IOC) described in the literature. Objectives: The present study aims to describe the evolution in classification of serrated lesions, based on the last three publications of theWorld Health Organization (WHO) and the reproducibility of these criteria by pathologists, based on the evaluation of the IOC. Methods: A search was conducted in the PubMed, ResearchGate and Portal Capes databases, with the following terms: sessile serrated lesion; serrated lesions; serrated adenoma; interobserver concordance; andreproducibility.Articlespublished since 1990were researched. Results and Discussion: The classification of serrated lesions in the past thirty years showed different denominations and diagnostic criteria. The reproducibility and IOC of these criteria in the literature, based on the kappa coefficient, varied in most studies, from very poor to moderate. Conclusions: Interobserver concordance and the reproducibility of microscopic criteria may represent a limitation for the diagnosis andappropriatemanagementof these lesions. It is necessary to investigate diagnostic tools to improve the performance of the pathologist's evaluation, for better concordance, and, consequently, adequate diagnosis and treatment. (AU)

Valor diagnóstico de las clasificaciones outerbridge e ICRS para la clasificación artroscópica de lesiones condrales de rodilla / Diagnostic value of outerbridge and ICRS classifications for arthroscopic grading of chondral lesions in the knee

OBJETIVOS: Determinar el rendimiento de las clasificaciones de Outerbridge (OB) e International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS). MÉTODO: Estudio de test diagnóstico, diseño y recolección de datos prospectivo. Siete traumatólogos sub-especialistas observaron un mismo video donde se exponían 30 lesiones condrales bajo visión artroscópica, para luego clasificarlas según OB e ICRS y consignar el tratamiento de elección para cada una de las lesiones, eligiendo entre 6 alternativas: observación, debridamiento mecánico o térmico, microfractura, OATS o terapias biológicas. Tras 7 días, los evaluadores debían repetir el mismo procedimiento. RESULTADOS: La concordancia entre los observadores fue débil para clasificación de ICRS (k 0,25 p < 0,001) y moderada para la clasificación de OB (k 0,45 p < 0,001). La concordancia intra-observador para ICRS oscilaba entre moderada y excelente (k promedio de 0,67), y para la clasificación de OB entre buena y excelente (k promedio 0,83). Ninguna de las dos clasificaciones mostró correlación con la experiencia del cirujano. En la elección de tratamiento, la concordancia entre observadores fue débil (k 0,33 p < 0,001), sin embargo, la concordancia intra-observador fue en todos los casos buena o excelente (k 0,82), mostrando una correlación directamente proporcional a la experiencia del cirujano. La capacidad de discriminación terapéutica, evaluada mediante una regresión logística, mostró un área bajo la curva roc en el rango del no-efecto. CONCLUSIÓN: Ambas clasificaciones mostraron una baja correlación inter-observador y una elevada concordancia intra-observador. En ambas categorías, Outerbridge fue más concordante que ICRS. En cuanto al tratamiento, ninguna de las dos clasificaciones logra unificar criterios quirúrgicos. NIVEL DE EVIDENCIA: Nivel I (test diagnóstico).

OBJECTIVES: Assess de diagnostic accuracy of Outerbridge (OB) and ICRS (International Cartilage Repair Society) classifications. METHODS: We performed a diagnostic test study, with a prospective design and data collection. Seven knee surgeons were asked to observe a video were the 30 chondral lesions were shown through arthroscopic view. Simultaneously they were asked to classify them according to OB and ICRS. Besides, they had to define how they would manage the chondral lesion, choosing among six treatment options (observation, mechanical or thermic chondroplasty, microfracture, osteochondral autologous transfer system (OATS) or biological therapies). A week later, they repeated the same procedure. Intra and interobserver agreement were characterized by κ statistical analysis, and a logistic regression was used to assess the ability of both classifications to discriminate among treatment options. P values < 0,05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was weak (κ 0.25 p < 0.001) for ICRS classification and moderate for OB classification (κ 0.45 p < 0.001). Intraobserver agreement for ICRS ranged from moderate to excellent (average κ of 0.67), and for the OB classification ranged from good to excellent (average kappa 0.83). Neither classification correlated with the surgeon's experience. Interobserver agreement for therapeutic choice was poor (κ 0.33 p < 0.001). However, intraobserver agreement was good to excellent (κ 0.82) in all cases, showing a direct correlation with the surgeon's experience. Logistic regression used to assess the ability of both classifications to discriminate among treatment options, showed in both cases an area under the roc curve in the no-effect range. CONCLUSION: Both classifications showed low interobserver and high intraobserver agreements for arthroscopic grading of chondral lesions. In both, Outerbridge was more reliable than ICRS. As for guiding therapeutic management, none of the classifications could unify surgical criteria.