Interobserver variability in the histologic evaluation of serrated epithelial change in inflammatory bowel disease among gastrointestinal pathologists: a comparison of two different definitions.

[AIMS] There are no standardized histologic criteria for diagnosing serrated epithelial change (SEC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but two commonly used definitions are currently in use. The first definition (DEF1) is a simpler definition but requires endoscopic correlation. It encompasses all endoscopically invisible or non-targeted serrated lesions without morphologic evidence of dysplasia that do not meet the diagnostic criteria of sessile serrated lesion (SSL) or traditional serrated adenoma (TSA). In contrast, the second definition (DEF2) incorporates more complex morphologic criteria (i.e., disorganized crypt architecture with some crypts no longer perpendicular or extending down to the muscularis mucosae, irregular serration spanning the entire thickness of the mucosa, and goblet cell-rich epithelium), but does not necessitate endoscopic correlation. The reproducibility of SEC diagnoses using these definitions among gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists has not yet been evaluated.

[METHODS AND RESULTS] Seven GI pathologists independently evaluated 38 GI cases, including 21 digitally scanned biopsy slides and 17 previously published images, demonstrating various types of serrated changes and their morphologic mimics. The diagnostic categories included: (1) SEC, (2) hyperplastic polyp (HP), (3) SSL, (4) TSA, (5) hypermucinous dysplasia (HMD), and (6) no serrated change or dysplasia (NSD). All cases were selected by a single pathologist (WTC) who did not participate in the interobserver study. The pathologists initially assessed each case as if it were endoscopically normal and provided a diagnosis using DEF1. Next, they re-evaluated each case, this time considering it as a nodular or polypoid lesion, and again made a diagnosis using DEF1. The same process was then repeated for each case but using DEF2. A total of 532 diagnoses were made for each definition (7 pathologists × 38 cases × 2 endoscopic appearances). Fleiss' kappa statistics were used to assess the level of agreement among the seven pathologists. The total number of SEC diagnoses using DEF1 (n = 110 of 532) was more than twice that of DEF2 (n = 50 of 532). Also, the number of SEC diagnoses per pathologist was higher using DEF1 (mean: 16, range: 12-18) compared to DEF2 (mean: 7, range: 0-14). Furthermore, the instances where four or more pathologists agreed on the diagnosis of SEC were more frequent with DEF1 (16 of 38 cases) than with DEF2 (1 of 38 cases). The overall agreement in diagnosing SEC (vs. no SEC) using DEF1 was substantial (k = 0.69, P < 0.001), whereas the agreement using DEF2 was only slight (k = 0.18, P < 0.001). Among potential SEC mimics, there was substantial agreement in diagnosing HP (k = 0.69 using DEF1), SSL (k = 0.68), TSA (k = 1.00), HMD (k = 0.79), and NSD (k = 0.61) (P < 0.001).

[CONCLUSIONS] The diagnosis of SEC using DEF1 is significantly more reproducible than using DEF2. Utilizing DEF1 is also less likely to miss potentially important cases of SEC. Therefore, DEF1 could be adopted to separate SEC from other serrated lesions and morphologic mimics in IBD.