Javey H, Borazjani G, Behmard S, Langley F A
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979 Jun;86(6):480-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1979.tb10793.x.
Sections of tissue from 256 patients on which a histological diagnosis of hydatidiform mole had been made were reviewed by a visiting pathologist. There was agreement between the reporting pathologists and the visiting pathologist in only 55.1 per cent of cases, a less severe diagnosis was made by the visiting pathologist in 42.2 per cent of cases. The disagreement was as high as 66.6 per cent with pathologists who rarely worked in the gynaecological field. This study casts serious doubt on the consistency of the histological diagnosis of hydatidiform mole made in any one laboratory and between different laboratories. It is suggested that in epidemiological studies the diagnosis should be made by a panel of pathologists using strict histological criteria and in an individual laboratory diagnosis should be made or confirmed by a pathologist experienced in gynaecological pathology.
一位客座病理学家对256例已作出葡萄胎组织学诊断的患者的组织切片进行了复查。报告病理学家与客座病理学家之间仅在55.1%的病例中意见一致，在42.2%的病例中客座病理学家作出了不太严重的诊断。与很少从事妇科领域工作的病理学家之间的分歧高达66.6%。这项研究严重质疑了任何一个实验室以及不同实验室之间葡萄胎组织学诊断的一致性。建议在流行病学研究中，应由一组病理学家采用严格的组织学标准进行诊断，而在个体实验室中，应由有妇科病理学经验的病理学家进行诊断或确认。
