Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessment of large droplet fat in frozen sections of donor liver biopsies: utility and interobserver variability of the newly described Banff method compared to a simplified Average of Fields method.
Kikuchi, Alexander T; Akanuma, Naoki; Choi, Won-Tak; Gill, Ryan M; Kakar, Sanjay.
Afiliação
  • Kikuchi AT; Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
  • Akanuma N; Pathology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
  • Choi WT; Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
  • Gill RM; Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
  • Kakar S; Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
J Clin Pathol ; 77(3): 151-156, 2024 Feb 19.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38053274
ABSTRACT

AIMS:

There is great variability in the assessment and reporting of fat in frozen sections of donor liver biopsies. The Banff Working Group has proposed a novel method and definition for scoring large droplet fat (LDF) in donor liver biopsies. This study compares the Banff method with a simpler Average of Fields (AF) method and evaluates the impact of different LDF definitions.

METHODS:

Three pathologists assessed percentage of LDF (LDF%) in 10 donor liver biopsies using Banff and AF methods, applying the Banff LDF definition (cell distention with a single droplet larger than adjacent hepatocytes). Additionally, LDF% by the AF method was compared using two LDF definitions Banff definition versus LDF definition 2 (single fat droplet occupying greater than half of a hepatocyte with nuclear displacement).

RESULTS:

Intraobserver concordance between the Banff and AF methods was similar for all three pathologists (kappa 0.76-1). Both methods exhibited 70% interobserver concordance, and there was substantial agreement (kappa 0.68) in the LDF% among the three pathologists for both methods. Comparing the two LDF definitions, results were significantly lower with the Banff definition; LDF >50% was observed in four cases with LDF definition 2 but none of the cases with the Banff definition.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is high interobserver and intraobserver concordance of LDF% between the Banff and AF methods. LDF% determined by the Banff definition was lower than with LDF definition 2, and needs to be validated based on graft outcome before it can be recommended for clinical use.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Transplante de Fígado Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Transplante de Fígado Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article