Interobserver diagnostic variability at "moderate" agreement levels could significantly change the prognostic estimates of clinicopathologic studies: evaluation of the problem using evidence from patients with diffuse lung disease

Pathologists should probably forget about kappa. Percent agreement, diagnostic specificity and related metrics provide more clinically applicable measures of interobserver variability

Kappa statistics have been widely used in the pathology literature to compare interobserver diagnostic variability (IOV) among different pathologists but there has been limited discussion about the clinical significance of kappa scores. Five representative and recent pathology papers were queried using clinically relevant specific questions to learn how IOV was evaluated and how the clinical applicability of results was interpreted. The papers supported our anecdotal impression that pathologists usually assess IOV using Cohen's or Fleiss' kappa statistics and interpret the results using some variation of the scale proposed by Landis and Koch. The papers did not cite or propose specific guidelines to comment on the clinical applicability of results. The solutions proposed to decrease IOV included the development of better diagnostic criteria and additional educational efforts, but the possibility that the entities themselves represented a continuum of morphologic findings rather than distinct diagnostic categories was not considered in any of the studies. A dataset from a previous study of IOV reported by Thunnissen et al. was recalculated to estimate percent agreement among 19 international lung pathologists for the diagnosis of 74 challenging lung neuroendocrine neoplasms. Kappa scores and diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated using the majority consensus diagnosis for each case as the gold reference diagnosis for that case. Diagnostic specificity estimates among multiple pathologists were > 90%, although kappa scores were considerably more variable. We explain why kappa scores are of limited clinical applicability in pathology and propose the use of positive and negative percent agreement and diagnostic specificity against a gold reference diagnosis to evaluate IOV among two and multiple raters, respectively.

Pathology in the era of "Personalized Medicine": The need to learn how to integrate multivariate immunohistochemical and "omics" data with clinicopathologic information in a clinically relevant way"

"Personalized medicine" has been proposed as a new paradigm for patient care that, based on the integration of genomics and other "omics" data with clinical and other multidisciplinary information, promises early disease detection, improved outcomes and reduced side effects to therapies. Pathologists have become important participants in this new approach as the guardians of tissues and experts in the performance of molecular and other laboratory tests. Large amounts of new laboratory data in multiple neoplasms and other entities are being reported but there has been limited discussion about how best to evaluate the clinical significance of this information and how to integrate it into currently available diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. This article introduces a variety of epistemological problems presented by the "personalized medicine" paradigm and briefly discusses various topics that will be evaluated in further detail in future articles of this new series on Evidence-Based Pathology.

Evidence-based pathology: systematic literature reviews as the basis for guidelines and best practices

CONTEXT

Evidence-based medicine has been proposed as a new paradigm for the identification and evaluation of medical information. Best available evidence or data are identified and used as the basis for the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients. Evidence-based pathology has adapted basic evidence-based medicine concepts to the specific needs of pathology and laboratory medicine.

OBJECTIVES

To briefly review the history and basic concepts of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based pathology, describe how to perform and interpret systematic reviews, and discuss how to integrate best evidence into guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC) and Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, New York) were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based pathology provides methodology to evaluate the quality of information published in pathology journals and apply it to the diagnosis of tissue samples and other tests from individual patients. Information is gathered through the use of systematic reviews, using a method that is less biased and more comprehensive than ad hoc literature searches. Published data are classified into evidence levels to provide readers with a quick impression about the quality and probable clinical validity of available information. Best available evidence is combined with personal experience for the formulation of evidence-based, rather than opinion-based, guidelines that address specific practice needs.

Histopathology and prognosis in human meningiomas

Histopathological grading of human meningiomas is based on criteria adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, interpretation of the defined histopathological criteria is often subjective. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and histopathological features in these tumours associated with patient survival. This enables evaluation of current grading guidelines and practice. In this study, 196 primary, intracranial, and consecutively treated patients from one institution were included. All histological sections were reviewed. Survival data were controlled with the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Falcine location, sheet-like growth, frequent mitoses, subtotal resection grade, and absence of psammoma bodies were strong prognostic factors. Of these factors, the latter two were statistically significantly associated with decreased time to recurrence in multivariate analyses. The WHO 2000 and 2007 classifications were associated with decreased time to recurrence. However, the grading criteria suggested by Ho et al. (2002) and in this study achieved stronger prognostic values. Easily recognizable histopathological criteria are essential in tumour grading. We suggest that any two of the following three variables can be used to recognize atypical (grade II) meningiomas: absence of psammoma bodies, presence of necrosis, and/or ≥4 mitoses per 10 high power fields.

Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 3: prognostic model research

Prognostic models are abundant in the medical literature yet their use in practice seems limited. In this article, the third in the PROGRESS series, the authors review how such models are developed and validated, and then address how prognostic models are assessed for their impact on practice and patient outcomes, illustrating these ideas with examples.

Cases non-specific interstitial pneumonia and hypersensitivity pneumonia: A new pathologic diagnosis or overlap syndrome

ATS/ERS evaluation of ILD’s has recently considered NSIP as a single entity and it has historically been considered a provisional diagnosis. As more cases are reviewed, pathologic characteristics may become more precise with less overlap and help in diagnosis of complex cases.

Here, we present a series of cases of HP and NSIP recently admitted to Masih Daneshvari Hospital with hope to characterize them better and eventually have less ambiguity about nature of NSIP.

Evidence-Based Principles in Pathology: Existing Problem Areas and the Development of “Quality” Practice Patterns

Context.—Contrary to the intuitive impressions of many pathologists, several areas exist in laboratory medicine where evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles are not applied. These include aspects of both anatomic and clinical pathology. Some non-EBM practices are perpetuated by clinical “consumers” of laboratory services because of inadequate education, habit, or overreliance on empirical factors. Other faulty procedures are driven by pathologists themselves.

Objectives.—To consider (1) several selected problem areas representing non-EBM practices in laboratory medicine; such examples include ideas and techniques that concern metastatic malignancies, “targeted” oncologic therapy, general laboratory testing and data utilization, evaluation of selected coagulation defects, administration of blood products, and analysis of hepatic iron-overload syndromes; and (2) EBM principles as methods for remediation of deficiencies in hospital pathology, and implements for the construction of “quality” practices in our specialty.

Data Sources.—Current English literature relating to evidence-based principles in pathology and laboratory medicine, as well as the authors' experience.

Conclusions.—Evidence-based medicine holds the promise of optimizing laboratory services to produce “quality” practices in pathology. It will also be a key to restraining the overall cost of health care.