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}
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.
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.