Significant variation in histopathological assessment of endoscopic resections for Barrett's neoplasia suggests need for consensus reporting: propositions for improvement.

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an important diagnostic step in management of patients with early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia. Based on ER specimens, an accurate histological diagnosis can be made, which guides further treatment. Based on depth of tumor invasion, differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, the risk of lymph node metastases and local recurrence is judged to be low enough to justify endoscopic management, or high enough to warrant invasive surgical esophagectomy. Adequate assessment of these histological risk factors is therefore of the utmost importance. Aim of this study was to assess pathologist concordance on these histological features on ER specimens and evaluate causes of discrepancy. Of 62 challenging ER cases, one representative H&E slide and matching desmin and endothelial marker were digitalized and independently assessed by 13 dedicated GI pathologists from 8 Dutch BE expert centers, using an online assessment module. For each histological feature, concordance and discordance were calculated. Clinically relevant discordances were observed for all criteria. Grouping depth of invasion categories according to expanded endoscopic treatment criteria (T1a and T1sm1 vs. T1sm2/3), ≥1 pathologist was discrepant in 21% of cases, increasing to 45% when grouping diagnoses according to the traditional T1a versus T1b classification. For differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, discordances were substantial with 27%, 42%, and 32% of cases having ≥1 discrepant pathologist, respectively. In conclusion, histological assessment of ER specimens of early BE cancer by dedicated GI pathologists shows significant discordances for all relevant histological features. We present propositions to improve definitions of diagnostic criteria.

Dysplasia in Random Biopsies from Barrett's Surveillance Is an Important Marker for More Severe Pathology.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although endoscopic recognition of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus is difficult, experience in recognition of early neoplastic lesions is supposed to increase the detection of early neoplastic lesions. The aim of this study was to assess the significance of dysplasia in random biopsies in Barrett's esophagus, in the absence of reported visible lesions as well as the difference in final outcome of pathology. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients with Barrett's esophagus with suspicion of dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma who were referred to our center between February 2008 and April 2016. We analyzed all endoscopy reports, pathology reports, and referral letters from 19 different hospitals. Patients were divided into two groups, based on the presence or absence of visible lesions reported upon referral. RESULTS: In total, 170 patients diagnosed with dysplasia or adenocarcinoma were referred to our tertiary center. Ninety-one of these referred patients were referred with dysplasia or adenocarcinoma in random biopsies, without a reported lesion during endoscopy in the referral center. During endoscopic work-up at our center, a visible lesion was detected in 44 of these 91 patients (48.4%). After endoscopic work-up and treatment, adenocarcinoma was found in an additional 21 patients. Two of these patients were initially referred with low-grade dysplasia, and 19 patients were initially referred with high-grade dysplasia. The final pathology was upstaged in 35.8% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of any grade of dysplasia in random biopsies during surveillance in referral centers is a marker for more severe final pathology. Training in recognition of early neoplastic lesions in Barrett's esophagus imaging is recommended for endoscopists performing Barrett's surveillance.

Adherence to pre-set benchmark quality criteria to qualify as expert assessor of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus biopsies - towards digital review of Barrett's esophagus.

Background: Dysplasia assessment of Barrett's esophagus biopsies is associated with low observer agreement; guidelines advise expert review. We have developed a web-based review panel for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus biopsies. Objective: The purpose of this study was to test if 10 gastrointestinal pathologists working at Dutch Barrett's esophagus expert centres met pre-set benchmark scores for quality criteria. Methods: Ten gastrointestinal pathologists twice assessed 60 digitalized Barrett's esophagus cases, enriched for dysplasia; then randomised (7520 assessments). We tested predefined benchmark quality criteria: (a) percentage of 'indefinite for dysplasia' diagnoses, benchmark score ≤14% for all cases, ≤16% for dysplastic subset, (b) intra-observer agreement; benchmark score ≥0.66/≥0.39, (c) percentage agreement with 'gold standard diagnosis'; benchmark score ≥82%/≥73%, (d) proportion of cases with high-grade dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus; benchmark score ≤1/78 (≤1.28%) assessments for dysplastic subset. Results: Gastrointestinal pathologists had seven years' Barrett's esophagus-experience, handling seven Barrett's esophagus-cases weekly. Three met stringent benchmark scores; all cases and dysplastic subset, three met extended benchmark scores. Four pathologists lacked one quality criterion to meet benchmark scores. Conclusion: Predefined benchmark scores for expert assessment of Barrett's esophagus dysplasia biopsies are stringent and met by some gastrointestinal pathologists. The majority of assessors however, only showed limited deviation from benchmark scores. We expect further training with group discussions will lead to adherence of all participating gastrointestinal pathologists to quality criteria, and therefore eligible to join the review panel.

Acenocoumarol as a risk factor for calciphylaxis: a feature clinicians should be aware of.

In contrast with uraemic calciphylaxis in end-stage renal disease, causes of and risk factors for non-uraemic calciphylaxis are relatively unknown to clinicians and have yet to become fully established. This report describes a case of non-uraemic calciphylaxis, in which the use of acenocoumarol might have been a risk factor. It is important to raise awareness about this association among clinicians, as vitamin K antagonists have to be stopped for an optimal treatment of this severe condition.