Determination of esophageal eosinophil counts and other histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis by pathology trainees is highly accurate

Spencer Rusin, Shannon Covey, Irina Perjar, Johnny Hollyfield, Olga Speck, Kimberly Woodward, John T. Woosley, Evan S. Dellon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

Many studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) use expert pathology review, but it is unknown whether less experienced pathologists can reliably assess EoE histology. We aimed to determine whether trainee pathologists can accurately quantify esophageal eosinophil counts and identify associated histologic features of EoE, as compared with expert pathologists. We used a set of 40 digitized slides from patients with varying degrees of esophageal eosinophilia. Each of 6 trainee pathologists underwent a teaching session and used our validated protocol to determine eosinophil counts and associated EoE findings. The same slides had previously been evaluated by expert pathologists, and these results comprised the criterion standard. Eosinophil counts were correlated, and agreement was calculated for the diagnostic threshold of 15 eosinophils per high-power field as well as for associated EoE findings. Peak eosinophil counts were highly correlated between the trainees and the criterion standard (ρ ranged from 0.87 to 0.92; P < .001 for all). Peak counts were also highly correlated between trainees (0.75-0.91; P < .001), and results were similar for mean counts. Agreement was excellent for determining if a count exceeded the diagnostic threshold (κ ranged from 0.83 to 0.89; P < .001). Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation (κ = 0.54-0.83; P < .01) and spongiosis (κ = 0.44-0.87; P < .01) but was lower for eosinophil microabscesses (κ = 0.37-0.64; P < .01). In conclusion, using a teaching session, digitized slide set, and validated protocol, the agreement between pathology trainees and expert pathologists for determining eosinophil counts was excellent. Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation and spongiosis but less so for microabscesses.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages50-55
Number of pages6
JournalHuman Pathology
Volume62
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Eosinophils
Pathology
Teaching
Eosinophilia
Pathologists
Histology

Keywords

  • Agreement
  • Diagnosis
  • Eosinophilic esophagitis
  • Histology
  • Training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Determination of esophageal eosinophil counts and other histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis by pathology trainees is highly accurate. / Rusin, Spencer; Covey, Shannon; Perjar, Irina; Hollyfield, Johnny; Speck, Olga; Woodward, Kimberly; Woosley, John T.; Dellon, Evan S.

In: Human Pathology, Vol. 62, 01.04.2017, p. 50-55.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rusin, Spencer ; Covey, Shannon ; Perjar, Irina ; Hollyfield, Johnny ; Speck, Olga ; Woodward, Kimberly ; Woosley, John T. ; Dellon, Evan S. / Determination of esophageal eosinophil counts and other histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis by pathology trainees is highly accurate. In: Human Pathology. 2017 ; Vol. 62. pp. 50-55.
@article{8db0633a299d48bd9926dc22d066db6c,
title = "Determination of esophageal eosinophil counts and other histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis by pathology trainees is highly accurate",
abstract = "Many studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) use expert pathology review, but it is unknown whether less experienced pathologists can reliably assess EoE histology. We aimed to determine whether trainee pathologists can accurately quantify esophageal eosinophil counts and identify associated histologic features of EoE, as compared with expert pathologists. We used a set of 40 digitized slides from patients with varying degrees of esophageal eosinophilia. Each of 6 trainee pathologists underwent a teaching session and used our validated protocol to determine eosinophil counts and associated EoE findings. The same slides had previously been evaluated by expert pathologists, and these results comprised the criterion standard. Eosinophil counts were correlated, and agreement was calculated for the diagnostic threshold of 15 eosinophils per high-power field as well as for associated EoE findings. Peak eosinophil counts were highly correlated between the trainees and the criterion standard (ρ ranged from 0.87 to 0.92; P < .001 for all). Peak counts were also highly correlated between trainees (0.75-0.91; P < .001), and results were similar for mean counts. Agreement was excellent for determining if a count exceeded the diagnostic threshold (κ ranged from 0.83 to 0.89; P < .001). Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation (κ = 0.54-0.83; P < .01) and spongiosis (κ = 0.44-0.87; P < .01) but was lower for eosinophil microabscesses (κ = 0.37-0.64; P < .01). In conclusion, using a teaching session, digitized slide set, and validated protocol, the agreement between pathology trainees and expert pathologists for determining eosinophil counts was excellent. Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation and spongiosis but less so for microabscesses.",
keywords = "Agreement, Diagnosis, Eosinophilic esophagitis, Histology, Training",
author = "Spencer Rusin and Shannon Covey and Irina Perjar and Johnny Hollyfield and Olga Speck and Kimberly Woodward and Woosley, {John T.} and Dellon, {Evan S.}",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.humpath.2016.12.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "50--55",
journal = "Human Pathology",
issn = "0046-8177",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determination of esophageal eosinophil counts and other histologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis by pathology trainees is highly accurate

AU - Rusin, Spencer

AU - Covey, Shannon

AU - Perjar, Irina

AU - Hollyfield, Johnny

AU - Speck, Olga

AU - Woodward, Kimberly

AU - Woosley, John T.

AU - Dellon, Evan S.

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - Many studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) use expert pathology review, but it is unknown whether less experienced pathologists can reliably assess EoE histology. We aimed to determine whether trainee pathologists can accurately quantify esophageal eosinophil counts and identify associated histologic features of EoE, as compared with expert pathologists. We used a set of 40 digitized slides from patients with varying degrees of esophageal eosinophilia. Each of 6 trainee pathologists underwent a teaching session and used our validated protocol to determine eosinophil counts and associated EoE findings. The same slides had previously been evaluated by expert pathologists, and these results comprised the criterion standard. Eosinophil counts were correlated, and agreement was calculated for the diagnostic threshold of 15 eosinophils per high-power field as well as for associated EoE findings. Peak eosinophil counts were highly correlated between the trainees and the criterion standard (ρ ranged from 0.87 to 0.92; P < .001 for all). Peak counts were also highly correlated between trainees (0.75-0.91; P < .001), and results were similar for mean counts. Agreement was excellent for determining if a count exceeded the diagnostic threshold (κ ranged from 0.83 to 0.89; P < .001). Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation (κ = 0.54-0.83; P < .01) and spongiosis (κ = 0.44-0.87; P < .01) but was lower for eosinophil microabscesses (κ = 0.37-0.64; P < .01). In conclusion, using a teaching session, digitized slide set, and validated protocol, the agreement between pathology trainees and expert pathologists for determining eosinophil counts was excellent. Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation and spongiosis but less so for microabscesses.

AB - Many studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) use expert pathology review, but it is unknown whether less experienced pathologists can reliably assess EoE histology. We aimed to determine whether trainee pathologists can accurately quantify esophageal eosinophil counts and identify associated histologic features of EoE, as compared with expert pathologists. We used a set of 40 digitized slides from patients with varying degrees of esophageal eosinophilia. Each of 6 trainee pathologists underwent a teaching session and used our validated protocol to determine eosinophil counts and associated EoE findings. The same slides had previously been evaluated by expert pathologists, and these results comprised the criterion standard. Eosinophil counts were correlated, and agreement was calculated for the diagnostic threshold of 15 eosinophils per high-power field as well as for associated EoE findings. Peak eosinophil counts were highly correlated between the trainees and the criterion standard (ρ ranged from 0.87 to 0.92; P < .001 for all). Peak counts were also highly correlated between trainees (0.75-0.91; P < .001), and results were similar for mean counts. Agreement was excellent for determining if a count exceeded the diagnostic threshold (κ ranged from 0.83 to 0.89; P < .001). Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation (κ = 0.54-0.83; P < .01) and spongiosis (κ = 0.44-0.87; P < .01) but was lower for eosinophil microabscesses (κ = 0.37-0.64; P < .01). In conclusion, using a teaching session, digitized slide set, and validated protocol, the agreement between pathology trainees and expert pathologists for determining eosinophil counts was excellent. Agreement was very good for eosinophil degranulation and spongiosis but less so for microabscesses.

KW - Agreement

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Eosinophilic esophagitis

KW - Histology

KW - Training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014319238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014319238&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.12.017

DO - 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.12.017

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 50

EP - 55

JO - Human Pathology

T2 - Human Pathology

JF - Human Pathology

SN - 0046-8177

ER -