评估口腔扁平苔藓病变的光镜评估与相关的直接免疫荧光评估的一致性。

IF 1.9 Q3 PATHOLOGY
Clinical Pathology Pub Date : 2023-09-13 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2632010X231197111
Blake T Hansen, Jeffrey B Payne, Kaeli K Samson, Peter J Giannini
{"title":"评估口腔扁平苔藓病变的光镜评估与相关的直接免疫荧光评估的一致性。","authors":"Blake T Hansen,&nbsp;Jeffrey B Payne,&nbsp;Kaeli K Samson,&nbsp;Peter J Giannini","doi":"10.1177/2632010X231197111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim/objective: </strong>Assess agreement between light microscopy and direct immunofluorescence (DIF) for histopathologic evaluation of oral lichen planus (OLP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Records evaluated included 60 OLP, 16 lichenoid mucositis (LM), and 56 non-OLP/non-LM cases. Cases had both light microscopic and DIF evaluations. Histopathologic parameters of OLP included: (1) hydropic degeneration of the basal cell layer, (2) band-like lymphocytic infiltrate immediately subjacent to the epithelium, and (3) presence of Civatte bodies. Two calibrated examiners independently assessed light microscopic features. Examiners reviewed cases with discordant diagnoses to determine a consensus diagnosis. Intra-rater reliability (IRR), sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 132 patients, 72.7% were female, average age 61.9 (SD = 13.8). Most common sites were gingiva (37.9%), buccal mucosa (37.1%), and tongue (7.6%). IRR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.40, 1.00) for the consensus diagnosis and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.39, 1.00) and 0.34 (95% CI: -0.03, 0.72) for the 2 examiners. Comparing consensus and definitive diagnoses: sensitivity of light microscopy: 0.32 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.45); specificity: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.94); PPV: 0.68 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.84), and NPV: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.70).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Light microscopy alone is not a viable alternative to adjunctive DIF for diagnosis of OLP lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":53204,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/25/be/10.1177_2632010X231197111.PMC10501058.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Agreement of Light Microscopic Evaluation of Oral Lichen Planus Lesions With Associated Direct Immunofluorescence Evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Blake T Hansen,&nbsp;Jeffrey B Payne,&nbsp;Kaeli K Samson,&nbsp;Peter J Giannini\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2632010X231197111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim/objective: </strong>Assess agreement between light microscopy and direct immunofluorescence (DIF) for histopathologic evaluation of oral lichen planus (OLP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Records evaluated included 60 OLP, 16 lichenoid mucositis (LM), and 56 non-OLP/non-LM cases. Cases had both light microscopic and DIF evaluations. Histopathologic parameters of OLP included: (1) hydropic degeneration of the basal cell layer, (2) band-like lymphocytic infiltrate immediately subjacent to the epithelium, and (3) presence of Civatte bodies. Two calibrated examiners independently assessed light microscopic features. Examiners reviewed cases with discordant diagnoses to determine a consensus diagnosis. Intra-rater reliability (IRR), sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 132 patients, 72.7% were female, average age 61.9 (SD = 13.8). Most common sites were gingiva (37.9%), buccal mucosa (37.1%), and tongue (7.6%). IRR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.40, 1.00) for the consensus diagnosis and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.39, 1.00) and 0.34 (95% CI: -0.03, 0.72) for the 2 examiners. Comparing consensus and definitive diagnoses: sensitivity of light microscopy: 0.32 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.45); specificity: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.94); PPV: 0.68 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.84), and NPV: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.70).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Light microscopy alone is not a viable alternative to adjunctive DIF for diagnosis of OLP lesions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/25/be/10.1177_2632010X231197111.PMC10501058.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632010X231197111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2632010X231197111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的/目的:评估光镜和直接免疫荧光(DIF)在口腔扁平苔藓(OLP)组织病理学评估中的一致性。方法:评估的记录包括60例OLP、16例苔藓样粘膜炎(LM)和56例非OLP/非LM病例。病例同时进行了光镜和DIF评估。OLP的组织病理学参数包括:(1)基底细胞层的积水性变性,(2)紧邻上皮的带状淋巴细胞浸润,以及(3)Civatte体的存在。两名经过校准的检查人员独立评估了光微观特征。检查人员审查了诊断不一致的病例,以确定一致诊断。测定评分者内部可靠性(IRR)、敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值(PPV和NPV)。结果:132例患者中女性占72.7%,平均年龄61.9岁(SD = 13.8)。最常见的部位是牙龈(37.9%)、颊粘膜(37.1%)和舌头(7.6%)。一致诊断的IRR为0.74(95%CI:0.401.00),两名检查者的IRR分别为0.73(95%CI:0.391.00)和0.34(95%CI-0.03,0.72)。比较一致诊断和明确诊断:光学显微镜的灵敏度:0.32(95%置信区间:0.200.45);特异性:0.88(95%CI:0.78,0.94);PPV:0.68(95%CI:0.48,0.84),NPV:0.61(95%CI:0.51,0.70)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing the Agreement of Light Microscopic Evaluation of Oral Lichen Planus Lesions With Associated Direct Immunofluorescence Evaluation.

Assessing the Agreement of Light Microscopic Evaluation of Oral Lichen Planus Lesions With Associated Direct Immunofluorescence Evaluation.

Assessing the Agreement of Light Microscopic Evaluation of Oral Lichen Planus Lesions With Associated Direct Immunofluorescence Evaluation.

Assessing the Agreement of Light Microscopic Evaluation of Oral Lichen Planus Lesions With Associated Direct Immunofluorescence Evaluation.

Aim/objective: Assess agreement between light microscopy and direct immunofluorescence (DIF) for histopathologic evaluation of oral lichen planus (OLP).

Methods: Records evaluated included 60 OLP, 16 lichenoid mucositis (LM), and 56 non-OLP/non-LM cases. Cases had both light microscopic and DIF evaluations. Histopathologic parameters of OLP included: (1) hydropic degeneration of the basal cell layer, (2) band-like lymphocytic infiltrate immediately subjacent to the epithelium, and (3) presence of Civatte bodies. Two calibrated examiners independently assessed light microscopic features. Examiners reviewed cases with discordant diagnoses to determine a consensus diagnosis. Intra-rater reliability (IRR), sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were determined.

Results: Of 132 patients, 72.7% were female, average age 61.9 (SD = 13.8). Most common sites were gingiva (37.9%), buccal mucosa (37.1%), and tongue (7.6%). IRR was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.40, 1.00) for the consensus diagnosis and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.39, 1.00) and 0.34 (95% CI: -0.03, 0.72) for the 2 examiners. Comparing consensus and definitive diagnoses: sensitivity of light microscopy: 0.32 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.45); specificity: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.94); PPV: 0.68 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.84), and NPV: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.70).

Conclusion: Light microscopy alone is not a viable alternative to adjunctive DIF for diagnosis of OLP lesions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Pathology
Clinical Pathology PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
66
×
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