{"title":"Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders: variations in eosinophilic counts among investigators and staining methods.","authors":"Mina Ikeda, Satoshi Arakawa, Takashi Kobayashi, Ken-Ichi Inada, Yuka Kiriyama, Takahiko Sakuma, Takuma Ishihara, Akiko Yagami, Kayoko Suzuki, Kyoko Futamura, Senju Hashimoto, Hironao Miyoshi, Satoshi Yamamoto, Haruhiko Tachino, Yoshihiro Imaeda, Hiroyuki Kato, Yukio Asano, Yoshiaki Katano, Akihiko Horiguchi","doi":"10.20407/fmj.2024-019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are pathologically diagnosed by manually counting the eosinophils in biopsy tissue under microscopy. However, the skill of the individual examiner is considered to influence the accuracy of the resulting eosinophil count (EC). This study aimed to examine the effects of different examiners and histopathological staining types on the EC results of pathological tissues from patients with EGIDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Infiltrating eosinophils in lesion tissues from 10 eosinophilic esophagitis and 28 eosinophilic gastroenteritis cases were counted by three pathologists and one cytotechnologist. The intra- and inter-observer variabilities in ECs related to hematoxylin-eosin (HE), May-Grünwald Giemsa (MG), and direct fast scarlet (DFS) staining were investigated. The effects of examiner expertise and staining method on ECs were analyzed using a linear mixed effects model. The difference in color value (ΔE) for each staining method was obtained using the Commission International de l'Eclairage luminance-a-b model (L*a*b*).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant intra-observer variability in eosinophil counting. Regarding inter-observer agreement, the examiner with the most EGIDs experience reported higher ECs than the other examiners for all three staining types (<i>P</i><0.001). ECs were significantly higher with MG and DFS staining than with HE staining, regardless of the examiner (both <i>P</i><0.001). Additionally, the ΔE values with DFS were higher than those with MG and HE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DFS staining offered the most selective visualization of eosinophils. ECs may vary depending on both the skill of the examiner and the staining method.</p>","PeriodicalId":33657,"journal":{"name":"Fujita Medical Journal","volume":"11 2","pages":"70-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12040485/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fujita Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20407/fmj.2024-019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are pathologically diagnosed by manually counting the eosinophils in biopsy tissue under microscopy. However, the skill of the individual examiner is considered to influence the accuracy of the resulting eosinophil count (EC). This study aimed to examine the effects of different examiners and histopathological staining types on the EC results of pathological tissues from patients with EGIDs.
Methods: Infiltrating eosinophils in lesion tissues from 10 eosinophilic esophagitis and 28 eosinophilic gastroenteritis cases were counted by three pathologists and one cytotechnologist. The intra- and inter-observer variabilities in ECs related to hematoxylin-eosin (HE), May-Grünwald Giemsa (MG), and direct fast scarlet (DFS) staining were investigated. The effects of examiner expertise and staining method on ECs were analyzed using a linear mixed effects model. The difference in color value (ΔE) for each staining method was obtained using the Commission International de l'Eclairage luminance-a-b model (L*a*b*).
Results: There was no significant intra-observer variability in eosinophil counting. Regarding inter-observer agreement, the examiner with the most EGIDs experience reported higher ECs than the other examiners for all three staining types (P<0.001). ECs were significantly higher with MG and DFS staining than with HE staining, regardless of the examiner (both P<0.001). Additionally, the ΔE values with DFS were higher than those with MG and HE.
Conclusions: DFS staining offered the most selective visualization of eosinophils. ECs may vary depending on both the skill of the examiner and the staining method.
目的:在显微镜下通过人工计数活检组织中的嗜酸性粒细胞来诊断嗜酸性胃肠道疾病(EGIDs)。然而,个人审查员的技能被认为会影响结果嗜酸性粒细胞计数(EC)的准确性。本研究旨在探讨不同检查剂和组织病理学染色类型对EGIDs患者病理组织EC结果的影响。方法:对10例嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎和28例嗜酸性胃肠炎病变组织中浸润性嗜酸性粒细胞进行计数。研究了与苏木精-伊红(HE)、may - gr nwald Giemsa (MG)和直接快速猩红(DFS)染色相关的ECs在观察者内和观察者间的变异。采用线性混合效应模型分析了审查员专业知识和染色方法对ECs的影响。使用Commission International del’eclairage亮度-a-b模型(l *a*b*)获得每种染色方法的颜色值差异(ΔE)。结果:观察组内嗜酸性粒细胞计数无显著差异。关于观察者之间的一致性,在所有三种染色类型中,具有最多EGIDs经验的审查员报告的ECs高于其他审查员(pp结论:DFS染色提供了最具选择性的嗜酸性粒细胞可视化。ECs可能因检查人员的技术和染色方法而异。