Skip to main content
Log in

Interobserver reproducibility in pathologist interpretation of columnar-lined esophagus

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Confirmation of endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia (ESEM) requires histology, but confusion in the histological definition of columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) is a longstanding problem. The aim of this study is to evaluate interpathologist variability in the interpretation of CLE. Thirty pathologists were invited to review three ten-case sets of CLE biopsies. In the first set, the cases were provided with descriptive endoscopy only; in the second and the third sets, ESEM extent using Prague criteria was provided. Moreover, participants were required to refer to a diagnostic chart for evaluation of the third set. Agreement was statistically assessed using Randolph’s free-marginal multirater kappa. While substantial agreement in recognizing columnar epithelium (K = 0.76) was recorded, the overall concordance in clinico-pathological diagnosis was low (K = 0.38). The overall concordance rate improved from the first (K = 0.27) to the second (K = 0.40) and third step (K = 0.46). Agreement was substantial when diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus (BE) with intestinal metaplasia or inlet patch (K = 0.65 and K = 0.89), respectively, in the third step, while major problems in interpretation of CLE were observed when only cardia/cardia-oxyntic atrophic-type epithelium was present (K = 0.05–0.29). In conclusion, precise endoscopic description and the use of a diagnostic chart increased consistency in CLE interpretation of esophageal biopsies. Agreement was substantial for some diagnostic categories (BE with intestinal metaplasia and inlet patch) with a well-defined clinical profile. Interpretation of cases with cardia/cardia-oxyntic atrophic-type epithelium, with or without ESEM, was least consistent, which reflects lack of clarity of definition and results in variable management of this entity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF, Inadomi JM, Shaheen NJ, American Gastroenterological Association (2011) American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 140:e18–e52

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. de Jonge PJ, van Blankenstein M, Looman CW, Casparie MK, Meijer GA, Kuipers EJ (2010) Risk of malignant progression in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus: a Dutch nationwide cohort study. Gut 59:1030–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sampliner RE (2002) Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Update Guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1888–1895

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abela JE, Going JJ, Mackenzie JF, McKernan M, O’Mahoney S, Stuart RC (2008) Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett’s dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 103:850–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Richter JE (2006) Short segment Barrett’s esophagus: ignorance may be bliss. Am J Gastroenterol 101:1183–1185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dent J, Brun J, Fendrick A et al (1999) An evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management—the Genval Workshop Report. Gut 44:S1–16

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R, Global Consensus Group (2006) The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol 101:1900–1920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitzgerald RC, Di Pietro M, Ragunath K et al (2014) British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 63:7–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J et al (2004) A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop. Gastroenterology 127:310–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang KK, Sampliner RE (2008) Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 103:788–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Murphy SJ, Johnston BT, Murray LJ (2006) British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus: are we casting the net too wide? Gut 55:1821–1822

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Rugge M, Fassan M, Battaglia G, Parente P, Zaninotto G, Ancona E (2009) Intestinal or gastric? The unsolved dilemma of Barrett’s metaplasia. Hum Pathol 40:1206–1207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhat S, Coleman HG, Yousef F et al (2011) Risk of malignant progression in Barrett’s esophagus patients: results from a large population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1049–1057

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Takubo K, Aida J, Naomoto Y et al (2009) Cardiac rather than intestinal-type background in endoscopic resection specimens of minute Barrett adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 40:65–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu W, Hahn H, Odze RD, Goyal RK (2009) Metaplastic esophageal columnar epithelium without goblet cells shows DNA content abnormalities similar to goblet cell-containing epithelium. Am J Gastroenterol 104:816–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Westerhoff M, Hovan L, Lee C, Hart J (2012) Effects of dropping the requirement for goblet cells from the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 10:1232–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gatenby PA, Ramus JR, Caygill CP, Shepherd NA, Watson A (2008) Relevance of the detection of intestinal metaplasia in non-dysplastic columnar-lined oesophagus. Scand J Gastroenterol 43:524–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yantiss RK, Odze RD (2009) Optimal approach to obtaining mucosal biopsies for assessment of inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Gastroenterol 104:774–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mandal A, Plyford RJ, Wicks C (2003) Current practice in surveillance strategy for patients with Barrett’s oesophagus in the UK. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 17:1319–1324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Harrison R, Perry I, Haddadin W et al (2007) Detection of intestinal metaplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: an observational comparator study suggests the need for a minimum of eight biopsies. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1154–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chandrasoma PT, Der R, Dalton P et al (2001) Distribution and significance of epithelial types in columnar-lined esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol 25:1188–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pace F, Bazzoli F, Fiocca R, Di Mario F, Savarino V, Vigneri S, Vakil N (2009) The Italian validation of the Montreal Global definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 21:394–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D et al (2006) The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology 131:1392–1399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McClave SA, Boyce HW, Gottfried MR (1987) Early diagnosis of columnar-lined esophagus: a new endoscopic criterion. Gastrointest Endosc 33:413–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Takubo K, Honma N, Aryal G et al (2005) Is there a set of histologic changes that are invariably reflux associated? Arch Pathol Lab Med 129:159–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Armstrong D (2004) Towards consistency in the endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus and columnar metaplasia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 20:40–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Boyer J, Laugier R, Chemali M et al (2007) French Society of Digestive Endoscopy SFED guideline: monitoring of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy 39:840–842

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sharma P, Morales TG, Sampliner RE (1998) Short segment Barrett’s esophagus—the need for standardization of the definition and of endoscopic criteria. Am J Gastroenterol 93:1033–1036

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dekel R, Wakelin DE, Wendel C et al (2003) Progression or regression of Barrett’s esophagus—is it all in the eye of the beholder? Am J Gastroenterol 98:2612–2615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Corley DA, Kubo A, DeBoer J, Rumore GJ (2009) Diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus: reliability of clinical and pathologic diagnoses. Gastrointest Endosc 69:1004–10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang H, Brown I, Kumarasinghe P et al (2012) Poor agreement for detection of goblet cells in esophageal and GEJ biopsies. Lab Invest 92:184A–185A

    Google Scholar 

  32. Curvers WL, ten Kate FJ, Krishnadath KK et al (2010) Low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: overdiagnosed and underestimated. Am J Gastroenterol 105:1523–1530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pech O, Vieth M, Schmitz D et al (2007) Conclusions from the histological diagnosis of low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus. Scand J Gastroenterol 42:682–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaye PV, Haider SA, Ilyas M et al (2009) Barrett’s dysplasia and the Vienna classification: reproducibility, prediction of progression and impact of consensus reporting and p53 immunohistochemistry. Histopathology 54:699–712

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fiocca R, Mastracci L, Milione M, Parente P, Savarino V, Gruppo Italiano Patologi Apparato Digerente (GIPAD); Società Italiana di Anatomia Patologica e Citopatologia Diagnostica/International Academy of Pathology, Italian division (SIAPEC/IAP) (2011) Microscopic esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus: the histology report. Dig Liver Dis 43S:S319–S330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fleiss JL, Nee JCM, Landis JR (1979) Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychol Bull 86:974–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Menezes A, Tierney A, Yang YX, Forde KA, Bewtra M, Metz D, Ginsberg GG, Falk GW (2015) Adherence to the 2011 American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Dis Esophagus 28:538–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Simona Pigozzi and Roberto Garavaglia for technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Mastracci.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by University of Genoa Research grant (PRA) 2012, awarded to Luca Mastracci.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Appendix

Appendix

Assessment of Barrett and its Reproducibility with Aim on Management (ABRAM) Study Group participants:

Alò PL (Pathology Unit, Fabrizio Spaziani Hospital, Frosinone); Al Omoush TMM (Pathology Unit, Riuniti University Hospitals, Trieste); Asioli S (Pathology Unit, G.B. Morgagni-L. Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì); Buffelli F (Pathology, Diagnostic, Bioimaging and Public Health Department, Pathology Unit, University of Bari and Policlinico Consorziale University Hospital, Bari); Conforti F (Pathology Unit, University of Magna Graecia and Mater Domini Hospital, Catanzaro); Cornaggia M (Diagnostic and Therapeutic Department, Pathology Unit, San Carlo Clinic, Paderno Dugnano, Milan, Italy); Cossu S (Pathology Unit, San Francesco Hospital, Nuoro); D’Armiento FP (Morphologic and Functional Diagnostic, Radiotherapy and Forensic Medicine Department, Pathology Unit, Federico II University Hospital, Napoli); De Marco L (Pathology Unit, S. Maria Nuova Arcispedale, Reggio Emilia), Fiocca R (Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences, Pathology Unit, IRCCS S. Martino-IST University Hospital, Genoa); Foscolo AM (Pathology Unit, Castelli Hospital, Verbania); Fraternali Orcioni G (Pathology Unit, IRCCS S. Martino-IST University Hospital, Genoa), Ingravallo G (Pathology, Diagnostic, Bioimaging and Public Health Department, Pathology Unit, Policlinico Consorziale University Hospital, Bari), Locatelli F (Biomedic and Neuromotor Sciences Department, Pathology Unit, University of Bologna and M. Malpighi Bellaria Hospital, Bologna); Luinetti O (Diagnostic Medicine and Medicine of Services Department, Pathology Unit, IRCCS San Matteo, Pavia), Marchio C (Laboratory Medicine Department, Pathology Unit, Le Molinette University Hospital, Torino), Montinari E (Diagnostic and Sperimental Medicine Department, Pathology Unit, Arcispedale Sant’Anna University Hospital, Ferrara); Melchiorri L (Clinical Medicine, Public Health, Life and Environment Sciences Department University of l’Aquila and “San Salvatore” Hospital, l’Aquila); Messerini L (Pathology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Firenze); Migliora P (Pathology Unit, S. Andrea Hospital, Vercelli); Pizzi M (Pathology Unit, University of Padova and Padova University Hospital, Padova), Rugge M (Pathology Unit, University of Padova and Padova University Hospital, Padova), Saragoni L (Pathology Unit, AUSL Forlì, Forlì,); Tamponi E (Pathologic Anatomy and Histopathology Department, University of Cagliari and San Giovanni di Dio University Hospital, Cagliari); Tomezzoli A (Pathology and Diagnostic Department, Pathology Unit, Verona University Hospital, Verona); Trisolini MP (Pathology Unit, Vito Fazzi University Hospital, Lecce); Trombatore M (Laboratory Diagnostic Department, Pathology Unit, Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, Palermo); Vanoli A (Diagnostic Medicine and Medicine of Services Department, Pathology Unit, IRCCS San Matteo, Pavia); Vellone VG (Laboratory and Services Department, Pathology Unit, Giovanni Paolo II Foundation of Research and Cure, Campobasso); and Villanacci V (Pathology Unit, Spedali Civili, Brescia).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mastracci, L., Piol, N., Molinaro, L. et al. Interobserver reproducibility in pathologist interpretation of columnar-lined esophagus. Virchows Arch 468, 159–167 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1878-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1878-5

Keywords

Navigation