Bergeron C, Nogales F F, Masseroli M, Abeler V, Duvillard P, Müller-Holzner E, Pickartz H, Wells M
Laboratory PASTEUR CERBA, Cergy Pontoise, France.
Am J Surg Pathol. 1999 Sep;23(9):1102-8. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199909000-00014.
This study was designed to assess intraobserver and interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of 56 endometrial specimens by five European expert gynecologic pathologists using the WHO classification and to establish which histologic features are significantly associated with each classification category. The seven categories were simple hyperplasia, complex hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, proliferative endometria, secretory endometria, and other. Slides were reviewed twice for diagnosis, with accompanying evaluation of a checklist of histologic features. These seven categories were eventually reduced to four and three for the purposes of data analysis. The four modified diagnostic categories consisted of hyperplasia (previously simple hyperplasia and complex hyperplasia), atypical hyperplasia, well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, and cyclical endometrium (previously proliferative, secretory, and other). The three diagnostic categories consisted of hyperplasia, endometrioid neoplasia (previously atypical hyperplasia and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma), and cyclical endometrium. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was assessed using the percentage agreement and kappa statistics. The associations among the various histologic features and diagnoses was analyzed using multiple logistic regression to identify those features that were useful for distinguishing diagnostic categories. When using seven categories, kappa values ranged from 0.53 to 0.74 (percentage agreement, 61-79%) and from 0.33 to 0.59 (percentage agreement, 43-63%) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement, respectively. When using four categories, kappa values ranged from 0.68 to 0.73 (percentage agreement, 77-80%) and from 0.39 to 0.64 (percentage agreement, 54-73%) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement, respectively. When using three categories, kappa values ranged from 0.70 to 0.83 (percentage agreement, 80-89%) and from 0.55 to 0.73 (percentage agreement, 70-82%) for intraobserver and interobserver agreement, respectively. Data were analyzed in each diagnostic category. When using four or three diagnostic categories, the mean intraobserver and interobserver agreements varied less between categories and achieved higher values, with smaller 95% confidence intervals. The mean percentage agreement was lowest for complex hyperplasia and for atypical hyperplasia. For distinguishing cyclical endometrium versus hyperplasia, the useful histologic feature was glandular crowding. For hyperplasia versus atypical hyperplasia and for hyperplasia versus endometrioid neoplasia, the useful features were nuclear enlargement, nuclear pleomorphism, vesicular chromatin, and nucleoli, but of these, only nuclear pleomorphism achieved substantial mean intraobserver and interobserver agreements. For discriminating atypical hyperplasia from well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, the only useful feature was stromal alterations, which achieved only fair mean intraobserver and interobserver agreements. In summary, in endometrial biopsy or curettage specimens, the lack of agreement in the diagnoses of complex hyperplasia and atypical hyperplasia and the lack of reproducibility in the recognition of the histologic feature of stromal alterations to differentiate atypical hyperplasia from well-differentiated adenocarcinoma suggest that the histologic classification should be simplified by including a combined category for simple and complex hyperplasia, called hyperplasia, and a combined category for atypical hyperplasia and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma, called endometrioid neoplasia. Diagnoses of hyperplasia and endometrioid neoplasia are highly reproducible between observers from different institutions. Glandular crowding is the best histologic feature to differentiate cyclical endometrium from hyperplasia, whereas nuclear pleomorphism is the reproducible cytologic feature to differentiate hyperplasia from endometrioid neoplasia.
本研究旨在评估5名欧洲妇科病理专家使用世界卫生组织(WHO)分类法对56份子宫内膜标本进行诊断时的观察者内和观察者间一致性,并确定哪些组织学特征与每个分类类别显著相关。这七个类别分别为单纯性增生、复杂性增生、非典型增生、高分化腺癌、增殖期子宫内膜、分泌期子宫内膜和其他。对玻片进行了两次诊断复查,并同时评估了组织学特征清单。为了进行数据分析,这七个类别最终被简化为四个和三个。四个修改后的诊断类别包括增生(以前的单纯性增生和复杂性增生)、非典型增生、高分化腺癌和周期性子宫内膜(以前的增殖期、分泌期和其他)。三个诊断类别包括增生、子宫内膜样肿瘤(以前的非典型增生和高分化腺癌)和周期性子宫内膜。使用一致性百分比和kappa统计量评估观察者内和观察者间的一致性。使用多元逻辑回归分析各种组织学特征与诊断之间的关联,以确定那些有助于区分诊断类别的特征。使用七个类别时,观察者内一致性的kappa值范围为0.53至0.74(一致性百分比为61 - 79%),观察者间一致性的kappa值范围为0.33至0.59(一致性百分比为43 - 63%)。使用四个类别时,观察者内一致性的kappa值范围为0.68至0.73(一致性百分比为77 - 80%),观察者间一致性的kappa值范围为0.39至0.64(一致性百分比为54 - 73%)。使用三个类别时,观察者内一致性的kappa值范围为0.70至0.83(一致性百分比为80 - 89%),观察者间一致性的kappa值范围为0.55至0.73(一致性百分比为70 - 82%)。对每个诊断类别中的数据进行了分析。使用四个或三个诊断类别时,观察者内和观察者间的平均一致性在各分类之间变化较小,且值更高,95%置信区间更小。复杂性增生和非典型增生的平均一致性百分比最低。对于区分周期性子宫内膜与增生,有用的组织学特征是腺体拥挤。对于增生与非典型增生以及增生与子宫内膜样肿瘤,有用的特征是核增大、核多形性、泡状染色质和核仁,但其中只有核多形性在观察者内和观察者间达到了较高的平均一致性。对于区分非典型增生与高分化腺癌,唯一有用的特征是间质改变,但其在观察者内和观察者间仅达到了一般的平均一致性。总之,在子宫内膜活检或刮宫标本中,复杂性增生和非典型增生诊断的不一致以及区分非典型增生与高分化腺癌的间质改变组织学特征识别的不可重复性表明,组织学分类应简化,将单纯性增生和复杂性增生合并为一个类别称为增生,将非典型增生和高分化腺癌合并为一个类别称为子宫内膜样肿瘤。不同机构的观察者之间对增生和子宫内膜样肿瘤的诊断具有高度可重复性。腺体拥挤是区分周期性子宫内膜与增生的最佳组织学特征,而核多形性是区分增生与子宫内膜样肿瘤的可重复细胞学特征。