Richards B, Parmar M K, Anderson C K, Ansell I D, Grigor K, Hall R R, Morley A R, Mostofi F K, Risdon R A, Uscinska B M
Medical Research Council Urological Cancer Working Party, London.
Br J Urol. 1991 Apr;67(4):369-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1991.tb15164.x.
In the course of a Medical Research Council trial of intravesical chemotherapy, biopsies were taken from apparently normal bladder urothelium near to newly diagnosed superficial bladder cancers in 417 patients. Differences were noted in the rates at which histological features were described in different centres. To gain more information about the reproducibility of the pathological findings, a group of 6 pathologists (5 from the UK and 1 from the USA), all having a special interest in urological pathology, were asked to examine a representative sample of 92 slides. They were then asked to re-examine 30 of them after an interval of at least 6 months. At first examination and at re-examination the slides were assessed using a standard proforma. However, the definitions of the categories were left unspecified for the pathologists to use their own criteria. The 5 UK pathologists then met to establish a consensus view of each slide. The results indicated that: (1) The reporting of non-dysplastic changes varied so much between pathologists as to render it of little value to clinical practice. (2) There were wide variations between different pathologists in the reported incidence of dysplastic change. (3) On a second review the pathologists reproduced their own assessment on only 62% of occasions. (4) Even after discussion between pathologists there was no consensus on the diagnosis of mild as opposed to moderate dysplasia. Consensus was reached on all biopsies which showed either severe dysplasia or carcinoma in situ. (5) In adopting a policy of taking urothelial biopsies, urologists should be aware of the imprecision and lack of reproducibility in the interpretation of such biopsies. (6) Biopsies of cystoscopically normal urothelium may not be a useful guide in defining therapy.
在医学研究委员会进行的一项膀胱内化疗试验过程中,从417例新诊断的浅表性膀胱癌患者附近看似正常的膀胱尿路上皮取了活检样本。不同中心描述组织学特征的发生率存在差异。为了获取更多关于病理结果可重复性的信息,邀请了6名病理学家(5名来自英国,1名来自美国)组成的小组,他们都对泌尿病理学有所专长,对92张玻片的代表性样本进行检查。然后要求他们在至少间隔6个月后重新检查其中30张。在初次检查和重新检查时,使用标准表格对玻片进行评估。然而,类别定义未作明确规定,以便病理学家使用自己的标准。随后,5名英国病理学家开会就每张玻片达成共识意见。结果表明:(1)非发育异常改变的报告在病理学家之间差异很大,以至于对临床实践价值不大。(2)不同病理学家报告的发育异常改变发生率差异很大。(3)在第二次复查时,病理学家仅在62%的情况下重现了自己的评估。(4)即使在病理学家之间进行讨论后,对于轻度与中度发育异常的诊断也未达成共识。对于所有显示重度发育异常或原位癌的活检样本达成了共识。(5)在采取尿路上皮活检政策时,泌尿科医生应意识到此类活检解读的不精确性和缺乏可重复性。(6)膀胱镜检查正常的尿路上皮活检可能不是确定治疗方法的有用指导。