Objective 1. To assess inter-and intra-observer variation in the histopathological reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsies using a histologic modification of the cytological Bethesda grading system; 2. to determine the histologic profile of those cases which resulted in diagnostic disagreement.Methods Consecutive cervical colposcopic biopsies (n = 125) were assessed independently by six experienced histopathologists. Cases were classified as normal, low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Six months later the process was repeated. The degree of inter and intra-observer variation was assessed by kappa statistics. All cases in which there was less than perfect inter and intra-observer agreement were reviewed by the coordinator of the study. ResultsIn the first round of the study inter-observer agreement was generally poor, with unweighted and weighted kappa values ranging from 0.15 to 0.58 (average 0.30) and from 0.21 to 0.61 (average 0.36) respectively. In the second round inter-observer agreement was better, with unweighted and weighted kappa values ranging from 0.08 to 0.55 (average 0-33) and from 0.22 to 0.59 (average 0.42). Ten of the 15 pairs of observers achieved fair inter-observer agreement using weighted kappa analysis. The degree of intra-observer agreement was better, unweighted and weighted kappa values ranging from 0.26 to 0.61 (average 0.47) and from 0.34 to 0.62 (average 0-51) respectively. Two of the six participants achieved fair intra-observer agreement and two achieved good intra-observer agreement using weighted kappa analysis. There were marked difficulties in the separation of normal squamous epithelium from low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and in the separation of low grade from high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Histopathological review revealed that many of the difficulties in the separation of normal and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion were in the distinction between superficial vacuolated cells and true koilocytes. Difficulties also resulted in the separation of basal cell hyperplasia, inflammatory associated changes and immature squamous metaplasia from low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Conditions which resulted in difficulty in the separation of low grade and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions included florid koilocytotic change and immature metaplastic squamous epithelium with atypia. In some cases, there was a full spectrum of diagnoses from normal to high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. These were largely cases of immature metaplastic squamous epithelium with atypia and of thin or atrophic squamous epithelium with atypia.Conclusions Most pairs of observers can achieve fair inter-observer agreement in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsies using a modified Bethesda system. Intra-observer agreement is also generally fair to good using this system. It may be that a two tier grading system is more appropriate for the histopathological reporting of these biopsies than the tr...

Aims-To assess interobserver variation in reporting cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens and to determine whether a modified Bethesda grading system results in better interobserver agreement than the traditional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grading system. Methods-One hundred and twenty five consecutive cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens were assessed independently by six histopathologists. Specimens were classified using the traditional CIN grading system as normal, koilocytosis, CIN I, CIN II, or CIN III. The specimens were also classified using a modified Bethesda grading system as either normal, low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). Participants were also asked to categorise biopsy specimens by the CIN system with the addition of the recently proposed category "basal abnormalities ofuncertain significance (BAUS)". Conclusions-Interobserver agreement in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens using the CIN grading system is poor. Agreement, while still poor, is better when a modified Bethesda grading system is used. There is little or no consensus in the diagnosis of BAUS. (7 Clin Pathol 1996;49:833-835)

Cases of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) diagnosed in Northern Ireland during a 23-year period (1962-84) were identified from dermatology clinic files, paediatric hospital notes and cases known by general practitioners. A total of 48 confirmed new cases of EB were diagnosed during the screening period. This involved 31 families, with identification of 36 further cases. The distribution of incident EB subtypes was: simplex 31 (65%), junctional 1 (2%), dystrophic 12 (25%) and acquisita 4 (8%). The incidence rate of new cases of EB diagnosed per year is 1.4/million and prevalence of all forms estimated at 32/million. The prevalence of simplex, junctional and dystrophic forms is 28, 0.7 and 3/million, respectively.

The study shows that an eosinophil and/or neutrophil-rich variant of Ki-1 ALCD exists, expanding the morphological spectrum of this tumour.

An accurate and complete pathology report is critical for the optimal management of cutaneous melanoma patients. Protocols for the pathologic reporting of melanoma have been independently developed by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA), Royal College of Pathologists (United Kingdom) (RCPath), and College of American Pathologists (CAP). In this study, data sets, checklists, and structured reporting protocols for pathologic examination and reporting of cutaneous melanoma were analyzed by an international panel of melanoma pathologists and clinicians with the aim of developing a common, internationally agreed upon, evidence-based data set. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting cutaneous melanoma expert review panel analyzed the existing RCPA, RCPath, and CAP data sets to develop a protocol containing “required” (mandatory/core) and “recommended” (nonmandatory/noncore) elements. Required elements were defined as those that had agreed evidentiary support at National Health and Medical Research Council level III-2 level of evidence or above and that were unanimously agreed upon by the review panel to be essential for the clinical management, staging, or assessment of the prognosis of melanoma or fundamental for pathologic diagnosis. Recommended elements were those considered to be clinically important and recommended for good practice but with lesser degrees of supportive evidence. Sixteen core/required data elements for cutaneous melanoma pathology reports were defined (with an additional 4 core/required elements for specimens received with lymph nodes). Eighteen additional data elements with a lesser level of evidentiary support were included in the recommended data set. Consensus response values (permitted responses) were formulated for each data item. Development and agreement of this evidence-based protocol at an international level was accomplished in a timely and efficient manner, and the processes described herein may facilitate the development of protocols for other tumor types. Widespread utilization of an internationally agreed upon, structured pathology data set for melanoma will lead not only to improved patient management but is a prerequisite for research and for international benchmarking in health care.