English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

A pattern-based classification for invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma has been proposed as predictive of the risk of nodal metastases. We aimed to determine the reproducibility of such classification in the context of common diagnostic challenges: distinction between in situ and invasive adenocarcinoma and depth of invasion measurement. Nine gynecologic pathologists independently reviewed 96 cases of endocervical adenocarcinoma (two slides per case). They diagnosed each case as in situ or invasive carcinoma classifying the latter following the pattern-based classification as pattern A (non-destructive), B (focally destructive) or C (diffusely destructive). Depth of invasion, when applicable, was measured (mm). Overall, diagnostic reproducibility of pattern diagnosis was good (κ=0.65). Perfect agreement (9/9 reviewers) was seen in only 11 cases (11%), all destructively invasive (10 pattern C and 1 pattern B). In all, ≥5/9 reviewer concordance was achieved in 82/96 cases (85%). Distinction between in situ and invasive carcinoma, regardless of the pattern, showed only slight agreement (κ=0.37). Likewise, distinction restricted to in situ versus pattern A was poor (κ=0.23). Distinction between non-destructive (in situ+pattern A) and destructive (patterns B+C) carcinoma showed significantly higher agreement (κ=0.62). Estimation of depth of invasion showed excellent reproducibility (ICC=0.82). However, different measurements resulting in differing FIGO stages were common (from at least 1 reviewer in 79% cases). On the basis of interobserver agreement, the pattern-based classification is best at diagnosing destructive invasion, which carries a risk for nodal metastases. Agreement in diagnosing in situ versus invasive carcinoma, including pattern A, was poor. Given the nil risk of nodal spread in in situ and pattern A lesions, the term 'endocervical adenocarcinoma with non-destructive growth' can be considered when the distinction is difficult, after excluding destructive invasion. Depth of invasion measurement was highly reproducible among pathologists; thus, the pattern-based approach can complement, but should not replace, the depth of invasion metric.

modern pathology

Pattern-based classification of invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma, depth of invasion measurement and distinction from adenocarcinoma in situ: interobserver variation among gynecologic pathologists