Histological evaluation of PAXgene tissue fixation in Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma diagnostics
-
Published:2022-12-17
Issue:5
Volume:482
Page:887-898
-
ISSN:0945-6317
-
Container-title:Virchows Archiv
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Virchows Arch
Author:
Barroux MelissaORCID, Horstmann Julia, Fricke Lisa, Schömig Linus, Werner Martin, Kraynova Ekaterina, Kamarádová Katerina, Fléjou Jean-François, Maerkel Bruno, Kumarasinghe M. Priyanthi, Vieth Michael, Westerhoff Maria, Patil Deepa T., Steiger Katja, Becker Karl-Friedrich, Weichert Wilko, Schmid Roland M., Quante Michael, Slotta-Huspenina Julia
Abstract
Abstract
The dysplasia grading of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), based on the histomorphological assessment of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, suffers from high interobserver variability leading to an unsatisfactory prediction of cancer risk. Thus, pre-analytic preservation of biological molecules, which could improve risk prediction in BE enabling molecular and genetic analysis, is needed. We aimed to evaluate such a molecular pre-analytic fixation tool, PAXgene-fixed paraffin-embedded (PFPE) biopsies, and their suitability for histomorphological BE diagnostics in comparison to FFPE. In a ring trial, 9 GI pathologists evaluated 116 digital BE slides of non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and esophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) using virtual microscopy. Overall quality, cytological and histomorphological parameters, dysplasia criteria, and diagnosis were analyzed. PFPE showed better preservation of nuclear details as chromatin and nucleoli, whereas overall quality and histomorphologic parameters as visibility of basal lamina, goblet cells, and presence of artifacts were scored as equal to FFPE. The interobserver reproducibility with regard to the diagnosis was best for NDBE and EAC (κF = 0.72–0.75) and poor for LGD and HGD (κF = 0.13–0.3) in both. In conclusion, our data suggest that PFPE allows equally confident histomorphological diagnosis of BE and EAC, introducing a novel tool for molecular analysis and parallel histomorphological evaluation.
Funder
Deutsche Krebshilfe Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cell Biology,Molecular Biology,General Medicine,Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference44 articles.
1. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Gerson LB, American College of G (2016) ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 111(7):1077 2. Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, Borchard F, Cooper HS, Dawsey SM, Dixon MF, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Flejou JF, Geboes K, Hattori T, Hirota T, Itabashi M, Iwafuchi M, Iwashita A, Kim YI, Kirchner T, Klimpfinger M, Koike M, Lauwers GY, Lewin KJ, Oberhuber G, Offner F, Price AB, Rubio CA, Shimizu M, Shimoda T, Sipponen P, Solcia E, Stolte M, Watanabe H, Yamabe H (2000) The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 47:251–255. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.47.2.251 3. Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, Ang Y, Kang JY, Watson P, Trudgill N, Patel P, Kaye PV, Sanders S, O’Donovan M, Bird-Lieberman E, Bhandari P, Jankowski JA, Attwood S, Parsons SL, Loft D, Lagergren J, Moayyedi P, Lyratzopoulos G, de Caestecker J, British Society of G (2014) British society of gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 63:7–42. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305372 4. Vennalaganti P, Kanakadandi V, Goldblum JR, Mathur SC, Patil DT, Offerhaus GJ, Meijer SL, Vieth M, Odze RD, Shreyas S, Parasa S, Gupta N, Repici A, Bansal A, Mohammad T, Sharma P (2017) Discordance among pathologists in the United States and Europe in diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia for patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 152:564–570.e4. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.041 5. Salomao MA, Lam-Himlin D, Pai RK (2018) Substantial interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus upon review of a patient’s entire set of biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 42:376–381. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000988
|
|