Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Department of Pathology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2020 May-Jun;9(3):116-125. doi: 10.1016/j.jasc.2019.12.002. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
Prior to the 2018 publication of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC), a Web-based interobserver study was performed to evaluate MSRSGC reporting categories, identify cytomorphologic features that represent poor sources of agreement, and establish a baseline for future studies.
Study participants evaluated 75 images chosen from the MSRSGC image set, prior to the release of the Milan Atlas. Images spanned all diagnostic categories including typical and borderline cytomorphology. Participant demographics were collected on level of training, practice patterns, and experience.
A total of 647 persons attempted access to the survey. Of these, 555 correctly answered the qualifying questions. Participants included: 16.5% ASCP Certified Cytotechnologists, 2.8% Specialist Cytotechnologists, 5.8% IAC Certified individuals, 14.3% Anatomic (AP) Certified Pathologists, 38.9% AP and Cytopathology Certified Pathologists, and 15.3% pathology trainees. Length of participant practice varied from 0 to 54 years. In our sample, 43.4% of participants came from academic centers, 17.6% from private hospitals; and 13.3% from commercial/private laboratories. Overall, 42% of respondents agreed with the reference interpretations of salivary gland lesions. The best agreement was seen in cytopathology certified pathologists. Among the MSRSGC categories, best agreement was found in Neoplasm-Benign (58.9%) and Non-Diagnostic (49.2%) categories, followed by Malignant (48.4%). The agreement rates for Salivary Gland Lesion of Uncertain Malignant Potential (SUMP) and Suspicious For Malignancy (SFM) were 23.6% and 22.7%, respectively.
Similar to the reproducibility studies conducted for gynecologic and urinary cytopathology, the most important factor in diagnostic reproducibility was a priori classification of image difficulty, although people with higher certifications performed better.
在 2018 年《米兰涎腺细胞病理学报告系统》(MSRSGC)发表之前,我们进行了一项基于网络的观察者间研究,以评估 MSRSGC 报告类别,确定代表较差一致性的细胞形态学特征,并为未来的研究建立基线。
在米兰图谱发布之前,研究参与者评估了从 MSRSGC 图像集中选择的 75 张图像。这些图像涵盖了所有诊断类别,包括典型和交界性细胞形态学。参与者的人口统计学数据包括培训水平、实践模式和经验。
共有 647 人试图访问该调查。其中,555 人正确回答了资格问题。参与者包括:16.5%的 ASCP 认证细胞技术专家、2.8%的专业细胞技术专家、5.8%的 IAC 认证人员、14.3%的解剖(AP)认证病理学家、38.9%的 AP 和细胞病理学认证病理学家,以及 15.3%的病理科实习生。参与者的实践经验从 0 年到 54 年不等。在我们的样本中,43.4%的参与者来自学术中心,17.6%来自私人医院;13.3%来自商业/私人实验室。总体而言,42%的受访者同意涎腺病变的参考解释。细胞病理学认证病理学家的一致性最好。在 MSRSGC 类别中,良性肿瘤(58.9%)和非诊断(49.2%)类别具有最佳一致性,其次是恶性肿瘤(48.4%)。涎腺肿瘤的潜在恶性肿瘤(SUMP)和可疑恶性肿瘤(SFM)的一致性率分别为 23.6%和 22.7%。
与妇科和尿液细胞学进行的可重复性研究类似,诊断可重复性的最重要因素是图像难度的先验分类,尽管具有更高认证的人表现更好。