The interpretive variability of cervical biopsies and its relationship to HPV status

American Journal of Surgical Pathology

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 729-736

  Stoler, Mark H ^a,m   Ronnett, Brigitte M ^b   Joste, Nancy E ^c   Hunt, William C ^c   Cuzick, Jack ^d,n   Wheeler, Cosette M ^c   Kinney, Walter ^e   Waxman, Alan ^c   Espey, David ^f   McGrath, Jane ^c   Jenison, Steven ^g   Schiffman, Mark ^h   Castle, Philip E ⁱ   Benard, Vicki ^g   Saslow, Debbie ^j   Kim, Jane J ^k   Pressley, Giovanna Rossi ^l   English, Kevin ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^d QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^f CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^g University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center ^*  (United States)

^h NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

ⁱ Global Coalition Against Cervical Cancer   (United States)

^j AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

^k HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

ⁿ Albuquerque Area Indian Health Board   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 2 3; community and expert pathology panel diagnoses; histopathology diagnostic variability; human papillomavirus prevalence; United States

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COMPLICATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATHOLOGY; REGISTER; STANDARDS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VIROLOGY;

BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; REGISTRIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84929950916     PISSN: 01475185     EISSN: 15320979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000381     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Cai B, Ronnett BM, Stoler M, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of interobserver and intraobserver agreement of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis among an experienced panel of gynecologic pathologists. Am J S urg Pathol. 2007;31:1854-1860.
2. Creagh T, Bridger JE, Kupek E, et al. Pathologist variation in reporting cervical borderline epithelial abnormalities and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J C lin Pathol. 1995;48:59-60.
3. De Vet HC, Knipschild PG, Schouten HJ, et al. Interobserver variation in histopathological grading of cervical dysplasia. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:1395-1398.
4. De Vet HC, Knipschild PG, Schouten HJ, et al. Sources of interobserver variation in histopathological grading of cervical dysplasia. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:785-790.
5. Gage JC, Schiffman M, Hunt WC, et al. New Mexico HPV Pap Registry Steering Committee. Cervical histopathology variability among laboratories: A population-based statewide investigation. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;139 :330-335.
6. Gage JC, Joste N, Ronnett BM, et al. A comparison of cervical histopathology variability using whole slide digitized images versus glass slides: Experience with a statewide registry. Hum Path ol. 2013;44:2542-2548.
7. Kato I, Santamaria M, De Ruiz PA, et al. Inter-observer variation in cytological and histological diagnoses of cervical neoplasia and its epidemiologic implication. J C lin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1167-1174.
8. Lie AK, Skjeldestad FE, Hagen B, et al. Occurrence of human papillomavirus infection in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. A retrospective histopathological study of 317 cases treated by laser conization. APMIS. 1995;103:693-698.
9. McCluggage WG, Bharucha H, Caughley LM, et al. Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: Comparison of grading systems. J Clin Pathol. 1996; 49:833-835.
10. McCluggage WG, Walsh MY, Thornton CM, et al. Inter-and intraobserver variation in the histopathological reporting of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions using a modified Bethesda grading system. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:206-210.
11. Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Beck JS, et al. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42:231-238.
12. Kinney W, Hunt WC, Dinkelspiel H, et al. Cervical excisional treatment of young women: A population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:628-635.
13. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precurs ors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17: S1-S27.
14. Castle PE, Stoler MH, Solomon D, et al. The relationship of community biopsy-diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 to the quality control pathology-reviewed diagnoses: An ALTS report. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;127:805-815.
15. S toler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: Realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500-1505.
16. Wheeler CM, Hunt WC, Cuzick J, et al. New Mexico HPV Pap Registry Steering Committee. A population-based study of human papillomavirus genotype prevalence in the United States: Baseline measures prior to mass human papillomavirus vaccination. In t J Cancer. 2013;132:198-207.
17. Castle PE, Gravitt PE, Solomon D, et al. Comparison of linear array and line blot assay for detection of human papillomavirus and diagnosis of cervical precancer and cancer in the atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:109-117.
18. Galgano MT, Castle PE, Atkins KA, et al. Using biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:1077-1087.
19. Fadare O, Rodriguez R. Squamous dysplasia of the uterine cervix: Tissue sampling-related diagnostic considerations in 600 consecutive biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2007;26:469-474.
20. Stuart LN Rodriguez AS Gardner JM et al. Utility of additional tissue sectio ns in dermatopathology: Diagnostic, clinical and financial implications. J Cutan Pathol. 2014. 41. 81-87.
21. Galgano MT, Castle PE, Stoler MH, et al. Can HPV-16 genotyping provide a benchmark for cervical biopsy specimen interpretation? Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:65-70.
22. Kovacic MB, Castle PE, Herrero R, et al. Relationships of human papillomavirus type, qualitative viral load, and age wit h cytologic abnormality. Cancer Res. 2006;66:10112-10119.
23. Castanon A, Brocklehurst P, Evans H, et al. Risk of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women attending colposcopy in England: Retrospective-prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012;345:e5174.
24. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatmen t for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;367:489-498.
25. Stoler MH, Vichnin MD, Ferenczy A, et al. The accuracy of colposcopic biopsy: Analyses from the placebo arm of the Gardasil clinical trials. Int J Cancer. 2011;128:1354-1362.
26. Bergeron C, Ordi J, Schmidt D, et al. Conjunctive p16INK4a testing significantly incr eases accuracy in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;133:395-406.
27. Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et al. The lower anogenital squamous terminolog y standardization project for HPV-associated lesions: Background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136:12 66-1297.
28. Dijkstra MG, Heideman DA, De Roy SC, et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining as an alternative to histology review for reliable grading of cervical intraepithelial lesions. J Clin Pathol. 2010;63:972-977.
29. Stoler M, Bergeron C, Colgan TJ, et al. Epithelial tumours, part of tumours of the uterine cervix, chapter 7. In: Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Re productive Organs. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2014:172-198.