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

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.

Diagnostic and Treatment Reproducibility of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia / Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion and Factors Affecting the Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Inter-observer differences in the diagnosis of HPV related cervical lesions are problematic and response of gynecologists to these diagnostic entities is non-standardized. This study evaluated the diagnostic reproducibility of "cervical intraepithelial neoplasia" (CIN) and "squamous intraepithelial lesion" (SIL) diagnoses. MATERIAL AND METHOD: 19 pathologists evaluated 66 cases once using H&E slides and once with immunohistochemical studies (p16, Ki-67 and Pro-ExC). Management response to diagnoses was evaluated amongst 12 gynecologists. Pathologists and gynecologists were also given a questionnaire about how additional information like smear results and age modify diagnosis and management. RESULTS: We show moderate interobserver diagnostic reproducibility amongst pathologists. The overall kappa value was 0.50 and 0.59 using the CIN and SIL classifications respectively. Impact of immunohistochemical evaluation on interpretation of cases differed and there was lack of statistically significant improvement of interobserver diagnostic reproducibility with the addition of immunohistochemistry. We saw that choice of treatment methods amongst gynecologists varied and overall concordance was only fair to moderate. The CIN2 diagnostic category was seen to have the lowest percentage agreement amongst both pathologists and gynecologists. We showed that pathologists had diagnostic "styles" and gynecologists had management "styles". CONCLUSION: In summary each pathologist had different diagnostic tendencies which were affected not only by histopathology and marker studies, but also by the patient management tendencies of the gynecologist that the pathologist worked with. The two-tiered modified Bethesda system improved diagnostic agreement. We concluded that immunohistochemistry should be used only to resolve problems in select cases and not for every case.