Lu Zhen A, Aubry Mary Christine, Fallon John T, Fishbein Michael C, Giordano Carla, Klingel Karin, Leone Ornella, Rizzo Stefania, Veinot John P, Halushka Marc K
Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Cardiovasc Pathol. 2023 Jan-Feb;62:107492. doi: 10.1016/j.carpath.2022.107492. Epub 2022 Oct 28.
The two histopathology benchmarks used to diagnose myocarditis are the Dallas Criteria, developed in 1984 and the European Society of Cardiology criteria, developed in 2013, which added immunohistochemistry for the detection of CD3+ T cells (lymphocytes) and CD68+ macrophages. Despite their near universal acceptance, the extent to which pathologists use these criteria or their own criteria to consistently render the diagnosis of myocarditis on endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is unknown. We digitally scanned slides from 100 heart biopsies, including a trichrome stain and immunostaining, that were chosen as representative of myocarditis, non-myocarditis, and borderline myocarditis, as diagnosed per one institution's use of the Dallas Criteria. Eight blinded international cardiovascular experts were asked to render diagnoses and offer a confidence score on each case. No clinical histories were shared. There was full initial agreement across all experts on 37 cases (16 myocarditis and 21 non-myocarditis) and moderate consensus on 35 cases. After individual inquiries and group discussion, consensus was reached on 90 cases. Diagnostic confidence was highest among the myocarditis diagnoses, lowest for borderline cases, and significantly different between the three diagnostic categories (myocarditis, borderline myocarditis, non-myocarditis; P-value=8.49 × 10; ANOVA). Diagnosing myocarditis, particularly in cases with limited inflammation and injury, remains a challenge even for experts in the field. Intermediate cases, termed "borderline" in the Dallas Criteria, represent those for which consensus is particularly hard to achieve. To increase consistency for the histopathologic diagnosis of myocarditis, we will need more specifically defined criteria, more granular descriptions of positive and negative features, clarity on how to incorporate immunohistochemistry findings, and improved nomenclature.
用于诊断心肌炎的两个组织病理学基准是1984年制定的达拉斯标准和2013年制定的欧洲心脏病学会标准,后者增加了用于检测CD3 + T细胞(淋巴细胞)和CD68 +巨噬细胞的免疫组织化学方法。尽管这些标准几乎被普遍接受,但病理学家在多大程度上使用这些标准或他们自己的标准来在心肌内膜活检(EMB)中始终如一地做出心肌炎诊断尚不清楚。我们对100份心脏活检的玻片进行了数字扫描,包括三色染色和免疫染色,这些活检被选为心肌炎、非心肌炎和边缘性心肌炎的代表,这是根据一个机构使用达拉斯标准做出的诊断。八位不知情的国际心血管专家被要求对每个病例做出诊断并给出信心评分。未提供临床病史。所有专家对37例病例(16例心肌炎和21例非心肌炎)达成了完全初步一致,对35例病例达成了中度共识。经过个人询问和小组讨论,对90例病例达成了共识。诊断信心在心肌炎诊断中最高,在边缘性病例中最低,并且在三个诊断类别(心肌炎、边缘性心肌炎、非心肌炎;P值 = 8.49 × 10;方差分析)之间存在显著差异。即使对于该领域的专家来说,诊断心肌炎,尤其是在炎症和损伤有限的病例中,仍然是一项挑战。达拉斯标准中称为“边缘性”的中间病例代表了那些特别难以达成共识的病例。为了提高心肌炎组织病理学诊断的一致性,我们将需要更具体定义的标准、对阳性和阴性特征更细致的描述、关于如何纳入免疫组织化学结果的明确说明以及改进的命名法。