范围筛查:增强病理学家在胃肠道息肉综合征诊断中的作用。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PATHOLOGY
Pari Jafari, Christine Drogan, Emma Keel, Sonia Kupfer, John Hart, Namrata Setia
{"title":"范围筛查:增强病理学家在胃肠道息肉综合征诊断中的作用。","authors":"Pari Jafari, Christine Drogan, Emma Keel, Sonia Kupfer, John Hart, Namrata Setia","doi":"10.1007/s00428-025-04118-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Only a minority of patients at high likelihood of a gastrointestinal polyposis syndrome (GPS) are appropriately referred for workup. This proof-of-concept study evaluates a GPS screening rubric based exclusively on information in prior pathology reports and intended to facilitate pathologist engagement in GPS screening and referral. We sought to (1) identify patients who would benefit from further GPS workup, (2) assign a probable polyposis syndrome category (adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed), and (3) suggest a specific syndrome, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, whenever possible. We retrospectively tested the rubric against the pathology records of 108 patients (median, 6 reports/patient) with an established clinical diagnosis of GPS (adenomatous (N = 88), hamartomatous (N = 18), and mixed (N = 2) polyposis syndromes). Records were reviewed chronologically (mean, 4.4 min/patient) by a GI pathologist blinded to clinical history. Ninety-five patients (88%) had a positive GPS screen (N = 76 with an adenomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 17 with a hamartomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 2 with a mixed polyposis syndrome); all were assigned to the correct syndrome category. In a subset of cases, the histopathologic record suggested a specific syndrome (correct in 28 of 30 instances). Of 13 patients with a negative screen (failure to meet any rubric parameters), N = 6 (46.2%) had incomplete records. These findings demonstrate that when robust records are available, structured review of pathology reports is a sensitive and efficient tool for the identification of patients with a high suspicion of a GPS. While prospective studies are necessary, pathologists are indeed well positioned to play an expanded role in GPS screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening at the scope: enhancing the role of pathologists in diagnosing gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes.\",\"authors\":\"Pari Jafari, Christine Drogan, Emma Keel, Sonia Kupfer, John Hart, Namrata Setia\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00428-025-04118-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Only a minority of patients at high likelihood of a gastrointestinal polyposis syndrome (GPS) are appropriately referred for workup. This proof-of-concept study evaluates a GPS screening rubric based exclusively on information in prior pathology reports and intended to facilitate pathologist engagement in GPS screening and referral. We sought to (1) identify patients who would benefit from further GPS workup, (2) assign a probable polyposis syndrome category (adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed), and (3) suggest a specific syndrome, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, whenever possible. We retrospectively tested the rubric against the pathology records of 108 patients (median, 6 reports/patient) with an established clinical diagnosis of GPS (adenomatous (N = 88), hamartomatous (N = 18), and mixed (N = 2) polyposis syndromes). Records were reviewed chronologically (mean, 4.4 min/patient) by a GI pathologist blinded to clinical history. Ninety-five patients (88%) had a positive GPS screen (N = 76 with an adenomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 17 with a hamartomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 2 with a mixed polyposis syndrome); all were assigned to the correct syndrome category. In a subset of cases, the histopathologic record suggested a specific syndrome (correct in 28 of 30 instances). Of 13 patients with a negative screen (failure to meet any rubric parameters), N = 6 (46.2%) had incomplete records. These findings demonstrate that when robust records are available, structured review of pathology reports is a sensitive and efficient tool for the identification of patients with a high suspicion of a GPS. While prospective studies are necessary, pathologists are indeed well positioned to play an expanded role in GPS screening.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-025-04118-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-025-04118-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

只有少数患者在高可能性的胃肠道息肉病综合征(GPS)适当转介检查。这项概念验证性研究评估了GPS筛查标准,该标准完全基于先前病理报告中的信息,旨在促进病理学家参与GPS筛查和转诊。我们试图(1)确定将从进一步的GPS检查中受益的患者,(2)确定可能的息肉病综合征类别(腺瘤性、错构瘤性、锯齿状或混合性),以及(3)建议一个特定的综合征,如家族性腺瘤性息肉病,只要可能。我们回顾性地对108例临床诊断为GPS(腺瘤(N = 88)、错构瘤(N = 18)和混合型(N = 2)息肉综合征)的患者的病理记录(中位数,6例报告/患者)进行了检查。由一名不了解临床病史的胃肠道病理学家按时间顺序(平均4.4分钟/例)回顾记录。95例(88%)GPS筛查阳性(腺瘤性息肉综合征76例,错构瘤性息肉综合征17例,混合性息肉综合征2例);所有人都被分配到正确的综合症类别。在一小部分病例中,组织病理学记录提示一种特定综合征(30例中有28例正确)。13例筛查阴性(不符合任何标题参数)患者中,N = 6(46.2%)记录不完整。这些发现表明,当有可靠的记录时,对病理报告进行结构化审查是一种敏感而有效的工具,可用于识别高度怀疑GPS的患者。虽然前瞻性研究是必要的,但病理学家确实有能力在GPS筛查中发挥更大的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Screening at the scope: enhancing the role of pathologists in diagnosing gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes.

Only a minority of patients at high likelihood of a gastrointestinal polyposis syndrome (GPS) are appropriately referred for workup. This proof-of-concept study evaluates a GPS screening rubric based exclusively on information in prior pathology reports and intended to facilitate pathologist engagement in GPS screening and referral. We sought to (1) identify patients who would benefit from further GPS workup, (2) assign a probable polyposis syndrome category (adenomatous, hamartomatous, serrated, or mixed), and (3) suggest a specific syndrome, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, whenever possible. We retrospectively tested the rubric against the pathology records of 108 patients (median, 6 reports/patient) with an established clinical diagnosis of GPS (adenomatous (N = 88), hamartomatous (N = 18), and mixed (N = 2) polyposis syndromes). Records were reviewed chronologically (mean, 4.4 min/patient) by a GI pathologist blinded to clinical history. Ninety-five patients (88%) had a positive GPS screen (N = 76 with an adenomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 17 with a hamartomatous polyposis syndrome, N = 2 with a mixed polyposis syndrome); all were assigned to the correct syndrome category. In a subset of cases, the histopathologic record suggested a specific syndrome (correct in 28 of 30 instances). Of 13 patients with a negative screen (failure to meet any rubric parameters), N = 6 (46.2%) had incomplete records. These findings demonstrate that when robust records are available, structured review of pathology reports is a sensitive and efficient tool for the identification of patients with a high suspicion of a GPS. While prospective studies are necessary, pathologists are indeed well positioned to play an expanded role in GPS screening.

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
Virchows Archiv
Virchows Archiv 医学-病理学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.
×
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