Kujan Omar, Khattab Ammar, Oliver Richard J, Roberts Stephen A, Thakker Nalin, Sloan Philip
School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M15 6FH, United Kingdom.
Oral Oncol. 2007 Mar;43(3):224-31. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2006.03.009. Epub 2006 Aug 22.
The present study attempted to assess the reasons behind the inter-observer variation in grading oral epithelial dysplasia (OED). Three oral pathologists and one general pathologist examined 68 histological slides of OED lesions of variable grade for scoring the presence of each individual characteristic of the architecture and cytology changes that were established by the 2005 WHO classification. The assigned features in each case were correlated with clinical outcomes to understand which features are more commonly associated with malignant transformation. Interestingly, for all individual characteristics, the pairwise inter-examiner and group kappa values ranged from poor to moderate. It appeared that for each characteristic separately there was much dissension. Despite these observations, comparing these data with that from our previous paper on the same slides showed that the inter-observer agreement on the degree of dysplasia either by using the new binary system of "low-risk" or "high-risk" or by using the 2005 WHO classification turned out to be better than the agreement on the individual characteristics of architecture and cytology changes. Certain features show significant association with the clinical outcomes. In the discussion, some explanations to help understanding the sources of variation in grading OED are put forward. In conclusion, grading dysplasia is not an exact science and pathologists are doing their best to reach optimal results. Improvement in the standard of the histopathology reporting of OED lesions could be achieved by consideration of several issues. Of these, there is need for a universal definition of the architectural and cytological features that are the basis of any OED grading process. A minimum dataset for reporting OED lesions should be set up. Also, the use of a consensus scoring process between two or more observers should be encouraged as this would improve inter-observer agreement.
本研究试图评估口腔上皮发育异常(OED)分级过程中观察者间差异背后的原因。三名口腔病理学家和一名普通病理学家检查了68张不同分级的OED病变组织学切片,以对2005年世界卫生组织分类所确定的结构和细胞学变化的各个特征进行评分。将每个病例中指定的特征与临床结果相关联,以了解哪些特征更常与恶性转化相关。有趣的是,对于所有个体特征,两两观察者间和组内kappa值范围从差到中等。似乎对于每个单独的特征都存在很大分歧。尽管有这些观察结果,但将这些数据与我们之前关于相同切片的论文数据进行比较时发现,无论是使用新的“低风险”或“高风险”二元系统,还是使用2005年世界卫生组织分类,观察者间在发育异常程度上的一致性都优于在结构和细胞学变化个体特征上的一致性。某些特征与临床结果显示出显著关联。在讨论中,提出了一些有助于理解OED分级中差异来源的解释。总之,发育异常分级并非一门精确的科学,病理学家正在尽最大努力取得最佳结果。通过考虑几个问题,可以提高OED病变组织病理学报告的标准。其中,需要对作为任何OED分级过程基础的结构和细胞学特征有一个通用定义。应建立一个报告OED病变的最小数据集。此外,应鼓励在两名或更多观察者之间使用共识评分过程,因为这将提高观察者间的一致性。