Role of immunohistochemistry for interobserver agreement of Peritoneal Regression Grading Score in peritoneal metastasis.

Détails

Ressource 1Télécharger: 34954136.pdf (2596.47 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
ID Serval
serval:BIB_009D674A02E2
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Role of immunohistochemistry for interobserver agreement of Peritoneal Regression Grading Score in peritoneal metastasis.
Périodique
Human pathology
Auteur⸱e⸱s
Detlefsen S., Windedal T., Bibeau F., Bruhn L.V., Carr N., Graversen M., Markowski K., Mortensen M.B., Neureiter D., Sempoux C., Solass W., Thinesen M.T., Fristrup C.
ISSN
1532-8392 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0046-8177
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
02/2022
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
120
Pages
77-87
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)-directed therapy is a new treatment option for peritoneal metastasis (PM). The 4-tiered Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS) has been proposed for assessment of histological treatment response. We aimed to evaluate the effect of immunohistochemistry (IHC) on interobserver agreement of the PRGS. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained and IHC-stained slides (n = 662) from 331 peritoneal quadrant biopsies (QBs) taken prior to 99 PIPAC procedures performed on 33 patients were digitalized and uploaded to a web library. Eight raters (five consultants and three residents) assessed the PRGS, and Krippendorff's alpha coefficients (α) were calculated. Results (IHC-PRGS) were compared with data published in 2019, using H&E-stained slides only (H&E-PRGS). Overall, agreement for IHC-PRGS was substantial to almost perfect. Agreement (all raters) regarding single QBs after treatment was substantial for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66-0.72) and moderate for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.56-0.64). Agreement (all raters) regarding the mean PRGS per QB set after treatment was higher for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.73-0.83) than for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.64-0.78). Among residents, agreement was almost perfect for IHC-PRGS and substantial for H&E-PRGS. Agreement (all raters) regarding maximum PRGS per QB set after treatment was substantial for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.54-0.68) and moderate for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.53-0.66). Among residents, agreement was substantial for IHC-PRGS (α = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.57-0.75) and moderate for H&E-PRGS (α = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.45-0.64). Additional IHC seems to improve the interobserver agreement of PRGS, particularly between less experienced raters.
Mots-clé
Immunohistochemistry, Interobserver agreement, Peritoneal Regression Grading Score (PRGS), Peritoneal metastasis, Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), Response assessment, Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)
Pubmed
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
04/01/2022 9:34
Dernière modification de la notice
14/06/2022 7:08
Données d'usage