Longnecker Daniel S, Adsay N Volkan, Fernandez-del Castillo Carlos, Hruban Ralph H, Kasugai Tsutomu, Klimstra David S, Klöppel Günter, Lüttges Jutta, Memoli Vincent A, Tosteson Tor D, Yanagisawa Akio, Wilentz Robb, Zamboni Giuseppe
Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.
Pancreas. 2005 Nov;31(4):344-9. doi: 10.1097/01.mpa.0000186245.35716.18.
The goal of this study was to evaluate the consistency of distinction between pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) and intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) and the hypothesis that guidelines for their distinction might be inadequate.
A group of 93 pancreas specimens from surgical resections or autopsies that contained lesions consistent with histopathological diagnoses of PanIN-1A, PanIN-1B, PanIN-2, or IPMN (adenoma or borderline) was collected. The classification of these neoplasms by 6 pathologists, 2 from Europe, 2 from Japan, and 2 from the United States, was compared. The pathologists initially used guidelines current in their practice and then reviewed 47 of the 93 specimens a second time using new consensus definitions and guidelines for PanIN and IPMN that were developed in 2003.
The initial comparison showed frequent disagreement regarding both category and grade of the lesions. Agreement was greater for category than grade. In the second review, agreement among the 6 reviewers improved, remaining higher for category, although disagreements persisted for both category and grade.
We conclude that the new definitions of PanIN and IPMN improve the consistency in classifying these lesions, but additional work is needed to further improve the reproducibility of their classification.
本研究的目的是评估胰腺上皮内瘤变(PanIN)与导管内乳头状黏液性肿瘤(IPMN)之间鉴别诊断的一致性,以及关于其鉴别诊断指南可能不充分的假设。
收集了一组93份来自手术切除或尸检的胰腺标本,这些标本包含与PanIN-1A、PanIN-1B、PanIN-2或IPMN(腺瘤或交界性)组织病理学诊断相符的病变。比较了6位病理学家(2位来自欧洲、2位来自日本、2位来自美国)对这些肿瘤的分类。病理学家最初使用他们实践中现行的指南,然后使用2003年制定的关于PanIN和IPMN的新共识定义和指南,对93份标本中的47份进行了第二次复查。
最初的比较显示,在病变的类别和分级方面经常存在分歧。类别方面的一致性高于分级方面。在第二次复查中,6位审阅者之间的一致性有所提高,类别方面的一致性仍然更高,尽管在类别和分级方面仍存在分歧。
我们得出结论,PanIN和IPMN的新定义提高了对这些病变分类的一致性,但仍需要进一步开展工作以进一步提高其分类的可重复性。