Concordance Between Biopsy and Resection Diagnoses of Uterine Cervical Adenocarcinoma According to the Updated World Health Organization 2020 Classification: A Multi-Institutional Study Elucidating Real-World Practice in Japan.

Fumi Kawakami, Hiroyuki Yanai, Norihiro Teramoto, Yu Miyama, Masanori Yasuda, Sachiko Minamiguchi, Masami Iwamoto, Takako Kiyokawa, Yoshiki Mikami
{"title":"Concordance Between Biopsy and Resection Diagnoses of Uterine Cervical Adenocarcinoma According to the Updated World Health Organization 2020 Classification: A Multi-Institutional Study Elucidating Real-World Practice in Japan.","authors":"Fumi Kawakami, Hiroyuki Yanai, Norihiro Teramoto, Yu Miyama, Masanori Yasuda, Sachiko Minamiguchi, Masami Iwamoto, Takako Kiyokawa, Yoshiki Mikami","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0360-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Endocervical adenocarcinoma is divided into human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated (HPVA) and HPV-independent (HPVI) in the 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) tumor classification launched in 2020. However, the validity of the morphologic criteria used for biopsy specimens in real-world practice remains undetermined.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To validate the utility of the 5th edition of the WHO classification for biopsy samples, focusing on its diagnostic criteria with the aid of ancillary studies.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>We retrieved 217 cases of endocervical adenocarcinoma from 6 institutions, in which glass slides of both biopsy and resection specimens were available for review. Concordance between the biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses was evaluated. For discordant diagnoses, an algorithmic approach with ancillary studies proposed by the international group was applied to confirm their utility to improve the accuracy of biopsy diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>The biopsy diagnosis matched the resection specimen diagnosis in 197 cases (concordance rate, 91%; κ = 0.75). The concordance rate was significantly higher for HPVA than HPVI (95% versus 81%, P = .001). There were no significant differences in the proportions of HPVA and HPVI or the accuracy of biopsy diagnosis between the participating institutions. All 19 discordant cases with unstained glass slides available were accurately recategorized as HPVA or HPVI using HPV in situ hybridization; p16 immunohistochemistry was positive in 3 of 9 cases of gastric-type HPVI that were negative by in situ hybridization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>The 5th edition of the WHO criteria for biopsy diagnosis of endocervical adenocarcinoma distinguishes HPVA from HPVI well when ancillary studies are adequately applied.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0360-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: Endocervical adenocarcinoma is divided into human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated (HPVA) and HPV-independent (HPVI) in the 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) tumor classification launched in 2020. However, the validity of the morphologic criteria used for biopsy specimens in real-world practice remains undetermined.

Objective.—: To validate the utility of the 5th edition of the WHO classification for biopsy samples, focusing on its diagnostic criteria with the aid of ancillary studies.

Design.—: We retrieved 217 cases of endocervical adenocarcinoma from 6 institutions, in which glass slides of both biopsy and resection specimens were available for review. Concordance between the biopsy and resection specimen diagnoses was evaluated. For discordant diagnoses, an algorithmic approach with ancillary studies proposed by the international group was applied to confirm their utility to improve the accuracy of biopsy diagnosis.

Results.—: The biopsy diagnosis matched the resection specimen diagnosis in 197 cases (concordance rate, 91%; κ = 0.75). The concordance rate was significantly higher for HPVA than HPVI (95% versus 81%, P = .001). There were no significant differences in the proportions of HPVA and HPVI or the accuracy of biopsy diagnosis between the participating institutions. All 19 discordant cases with unstained glass slides available were accurately recategorized as HPVA or HPVI using HPV in situ hybridization; p16 immunohistochemistry was positive in 3 of 9 cases of gastric-type HPVI that were negative by in situ hybridization.

Conclusions.—: The 5th edition of the WHO criteria for biopsy diagnosis of endocervical adenocarcinoma distinguishes HPVA from HPVI well when ancillary studies are adequately applied.

根据世界卫生组织 2020 年最新分类法,子宫颈腺癌活检诊断与切除诊断的一致性:阐明日本现实世界实践的多机构研究。
背景:在世界卫生组织(WHO)2020年推出的第五版肿瘤分类中,宫颈内膜腺癌被分为人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)相关型(HPVA)和HPV无关型(HPVI)。然而,在现实世界的实践中,活检标本所使用的形态学标准的有效性仍未确定:验证第五版世卫组织分类对活检样本的实用性,重点是借助辅助研究确定其诊断标准:我们从 6 家机构检索了 217 例宫颈内膜腺癌病例,其中活检和切除标本的玻璃切片均可供审查。对活检和切除标本诊断的一致性进行了评估。对于不一致的诊断,采用了国际研究小组提出的辅助研究算法,以确认其在提高活检诊断准确性方面的实用性:活检诊断与切除标本诊断相吻合的病例有 197 例(吻合率 91%;κ = 0.75)。HPVA 的吻合率明显高于 HPVI(95% 对 81%,P = .001)。参与研究的机构之间在 HPVA 和 HPVI 的比例或活检诊断的准确性方面没有明显差异。所有 19 例未染色玻片不一致的病例均通过 HPV 原位杂交准确地重新归类为 HPVA 或 HPVI;在 9 例原位杂交阴性的胃型 HPVI 中,有 3 例 p16 免疫组化呈阳性:结论:第五版世界卫生组织宫颈内膜腺癌活检诊断标准在充分应用辅助研究的情况下,能很好地区分HPVA和HPVI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信