Vienna Consensus Criteria for Pathological Diagnosis

  • Jeremy R. Jass

Abstract

It is generally assumed that the distinction between cancer and noncancer is relatively straightforward and not subject to wide interobserver disagreement. A number of workshops involving the assessment of gastrointestinal lesions by Japanese and Western pathologists have highlighted major discrepancies [1]–[4]. In general, Japanese pathologists have a lower threshold for the diagnosis of malignancy than Western pathologists. In view of the poor levels of diagnostic agreement, international dialogue and collaboration is impeded, and progress in both clinical and basic research suffers accordingly. The Vienna classification (Table 1) was developed in order to remedy this situation [5]. When the proposed terminology is adopted by Japanese and Western pathologists, the reporting differences are reduced but not eliminated.

Keywords

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Intraepithelial Neoplasia Borderline Lesion Intramucosal Carcinoma Gastric Dysplasia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schlemper RJ, Itabashi M, Kato Y, et al (1997) Differences in diagnostic criteria for gastric carcinoma between Japanese and Western pathologists. Lancet 349: 1725–1729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schlemper RJ, Itabashi M, Kato Y, et al (1998) Differences in the diagnostic criteria used by Japanese and Western pathologists to diagnose colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 82:60–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schlemper RJ, Dawsey SM, Itabashi M, et al (2000) Differences in diagnostic criteria for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma between Japanese and Western pathologists. Cancer 88:996–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lauwers GY, Shimizu M, Correa P, et al (1999) Evaluation of gastric biopsies for neoplasia: differences between Japanese and Western pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol 23:511–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, et al (2000) The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 47:251–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eaden J, Abrams K, McKay H, et al (2001) Inter-observer variation between general and specialist gastrointestinal pathologists when grading dysplasia in ulcerative colitis. J Pathol 194:152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rugge M, Farinati F, Baffa R, et al (1994) Gastric epithelial dysplasia in the natural history of gastric cancer: a multicenter prospective follow-up study. Interdisciplinary Group on Gastric Epithelial Dysplasia. Gastroenterology 107:1288–1296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saraga EP, Gardiol D, Costa J (1987) Gastric dysplasia. A histological follow-up study. Am J Surg Pathol 11: 788–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lansdown M, Quirke P, Dixon MF, et al (1990) High grade dysplasia of the gastric mucosa: a marker for gastric carcinoma. Gut 31:977–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reid BJ, Weinstein WM, Lewin KJ, et al (1988) Endoscopic biopsy can detect high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus without grossly recognizable neoplastic lesions. Gastroenterology 94: 81–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA (2000) World Health Organization classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Compton C, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Pettigrew N, et al (2000) American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference. Cancer 88:1739–1757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Japanese Research Society for Gastric Cancer (1995) Japanese Classification of gastric carcinoma. 1st edn. Kanehara, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schlemper RJ, Kato Y, Stolte M (2000) Diagnostic criteria for gastrointestinal carcinomas in Japan and Western countries: proposal for a new classification system of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 15:G49–G57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghandur-Mnaymneh L, Paz J, Roldan E, et al (1988) Dysplasia of nonmetaplastic gastric mucosa. A proposal for its classification and its possible relationship to diffuse-type gastric carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 12: 96–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rugge M, Correa P, Dixon MF, et al (2000) Gastric dysplasia: the Padova International Classification. Am J Surg Pathol 24:167–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mäkinen MJ, George SMC, Jernvall P, et al (2001) Colorectal carcinoma associated with serrated adenoma-prevalence, histological features, and prognosis. J Pathol 193:286–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jass JR (2001) Serrated route to colorectal cancer: back street or super highway? J Pathol 193:283–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy R. Jass
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations