3 years ago

Overinterpretation is common in pathological diagnosis of appendix cancer during patient referral for oncologic care

Irene Thung, Ann P. Tipps, Mojgan V. Hosseini, Joel M. Baumgartner, Grace Y. Lin, Alexey A. Hodkoff, Esha Gollapalle, Mark A. Valasek, Vera Vavinskaya, Andrew M. Lowy, Kaitlyn J. Kelly

by Mark A. Valasek, Irene Thung, Esha Gollapalle, Alexey A. Hodkoff, Kaitlyn J. Kelly, Joel M. Baumgartner, Vera Vavinskaya, Grace Y. Lin, Ann P. Tipps, Mojgan V. Hosseini, Andrew M. Lowy

Context

Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) and appendiceal adenocarcinoma are known to cause the majority of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP, i.e. mucinous ascites); however, recognition and proper classification of these neoplasms can be difficult despite established diagnostic criteria.

Objective

To determine the pathological diagnostic concordance for appendix neoplasia and related lesions during patient referral to an academic medical center specialized in treating patients with PMP.

Design

The anatomic pathology laboratory information system was searched to identify cases over a two-year period containing appendix specimens with mucinous neoplasia evaluated by an outside pathology group and by in-house slide review at a single large academic medical center during patient referral.

Results

161 cases containing appendix specimens were identified over this period. Forty-six of 161 cases (28.6%) contained appendiceal primary neoplasia or lesions. Of these, the originating pathologist diagnosed 23 cases (50%) as adenocarcinoma and 23 cases (50%) as LAMN; however, the reference pathologist diagnosed 29 cases (63.0%) as LAMN, 13 cases (28.3%) as adenocarcinoma, and 4 cases (8.7%) as ruptured simple mucocele. Importantly, for cases in which the originating pathologist rendered a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, the reference pathologist rendered a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma (56.5%, 13 of 23), LAMN (39.1%, 9 of 23), or simple mucocele (4.3%, 1 of 23). The overall diagnostic concordance rate for these major classifications was 71.7% (33 of 46) with an unweighted observed kappa value of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.27–0.69), consistent with moderate interobserver agreement. All of the observed discordance (28.3%) for major classifications could be attributed to over-interpretation. In addition, the majority of LAMN cases (65.5%) had potential diagnostic deficiencies including over-interpretation as adenocarcinoma and lacking or discordant risk stratification (i.e. documentation of extra-appendiceal neoplastic epithelium).

Conclusions

Appendiceal mucinous lesions remain a difficult area for appropriate pathological classification with substantial discordance due to over-interpretation in this study. The findings highlight the critical need for recognition and application of diagnostic criteria regarding these tumors. Recently published consensus guidelines and a checklist provided herein may help facilitate improvement of diagnostic concordance and thereby reduce over-interpretation and potential overtreatment. Further studies are needed to determine the extent of this phenomenon and its potential clinical impact.

Publisher URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179216

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.