No abstract

No abstract

Pyostomatitis vegetans is a rare oral disorder often associated with gastrointestinal and/or cutaneous diseases and sometimes with other disorders. The association of pyostomatitis vegetans with inflammatory bowel disease, particularly ulcerative colitis, is well known and in most cases bowel disease precedes the onset of oral lesions by months or years. A peripheral eosinophilia has been observed in most reported cases. Pyostomatitis vegetans is characterized by erythematous, thickened oral mucosa with multiple pustules and superficial erosions. Histopathologically, it is characterized by intraepithelial and/or subepithelial abscesses containing large numbers of eosinophils. The pathogenesis is as yet unknown although immunological and microbial factors have been suggested as possible aetiological factors. Management of pyostomatitis vegetans consists mainly of immunosuppression using topical or systemic corticosteroids with medical and/or surgical treatment of any underlying inflammatory bowel disease.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective Inter-observer agreement in the context of oral epithelial dysplasia (OED) grading has been notoriously unreliable and can impose barriers for developing new molecular markers and diagnostic technologies. This paper aimed to report the details of a 3-stage histopathology review and adjudication process with the goal of achieving a consensus histopathologic diagnosis of each biopsy. Study Design Two adjacent serial histological sections of oral lesions from 846 patients were independently scored by two different pathologists from a pool of four. In instances where the original two pathologists disagreed, a third, independent adjudicating pathologist conducted a review of both sections. If a majority agreement was not achieved, the third stage involved a face-to-face consensus review. Results Individual pathologist pair kappa values ranged from 0.251 – 0.706 (fair – good) before the 3-stage review process During the initial review phase, the two pathologists agreed on a diagnosis for 69.9% of the cases. After the adjudication review by a third pathologist, an additional 22.8% of cases were given a consensus diagnosis (agreement of 2 out of 3 pathologists). Following the face-to-face review, the remaining 7.3% of cases had a consensus diagnosis. Conclusion The use of the defined protocol resulted in a substantial increase (30%) in diagnostic agreement and has the potential to improve the level of agreement for establishing gold standards for studies based on histopathologic diagnosis.

No abstract

No abstract