Interobserver variation in the classification of thymic lesions including biopsies and resection specimens in an international digital microscopy panel

Janina L Wolf, Francien van Nederveen, Hans Blaauwgeers, Alexander Marx, Andrew G Nicholson, Anja C Roden, Philipp Ströbel, Wim Timens, Annika Weissferdt, Jan von der Thüsen, Michael A den Bakker, Janina L Wolf, Francien van Nederveen, Hans Blaauwgeers, Alexander Marx, Andrew G Nicholson, Anja C Roden, Philipp Ströbel, Wim Timens, Annika Weissferdt, Jan von der Thüsen, Michael A den Bakker

Abstract

Aims: Thymic tumours are rare in routine pathology practice. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) classification describes a number of well-defined categories, the classification remains challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate the reproducibility of the WHO classification among a large group of international pathologists with expertise in thymic pathology and by using whole slide imaging to facilitate rapid diagnostic turnover.

Methods and results: Three hundred and five tumours, consisting of 90 biopsies and 215 resection specimens, were reviewed with a panel-based virtual microscopy approach by a group of 13 pathologists with expertise in thymic tumours over a period of 6 years. The specimens were classified according to the WHO 2015 classification. The data were subjected to statistical analysis, and interobserver concordance (Fleiss kappa) was calculated. All cases were diagnosed within a time frame of 2 weeks. The overall level of agreement was substantial (κ = 0.6762), and differed slightly between resection specimens (κ = 0.7281) and biopsies (κ = 0.5955). When analysis was limited to thymomas only, and they were grouped according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines into B2, B3 versus A, AB, B1 and B3 versus A, AB, B1, B2, the level of agreement decreased slightly (κ = 0.5506 and κ = 0.4929, respectively). Difficulties arose in distinguishing thymoma from thymic carcinoma. Within the thymoma subgroup, difficulties in distinction were seen within the B group.

Conclusions: Agreement in diagnosing thymic lesions is substantial when they are assessed by pathologists with experience of these rare tumours. Digital pathology decreases the turnaround time and facilitates access to what is essentially a multinational resource. This platform provides a template for dealing with rare tumours for which expertise is sparse.

Keywords: interobserver variation; thymoma; tumour classification; whole slide imaging.

Conflict of interest statement

The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest.

© 2020 The Authors. Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of thymomas from the thymoma panel; cases A–D were scored with high consensus rates, and for cases E–H there were split opinions. A, Encapsulated mediastinal mass scored by seven pathologists, with 100% consensus for type AB thymoma. B, Resected mediastinal tumour scored by 10 pathologists, with 100% consensus for type A thymoma. C, Resected thymic tumour scored by seven pathologists, with 99% consensus for type B3 thymoma. (1% type B2). D, Thymic resection unanimously scored by seven pathologists as thymic carcinoma. E, Biopsy specimen with a thymic epithelial tumour weakly staining for CD5 and strongly staining for p40. CD117 and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase were negative. The specimen was scored by nine pathologists, with an outcome of 55% type B3 thymoma and 45% thymic carcinoma. F, Resected encapsulated mediastinal tumour scored by nine pathologists, with an outcome of 74.7% type B3 thymoma, 22.2% thymic carcinoma, and 3.33% type B2 thymoma. G, Resected anterior mediastinal tumour. The tumour was positive for p40, cytokeratin (CK) 5, CK19, Pax8, and CD117, and negative for CK7, thyroid transcription factor‐1, napsin A, chromogranin, and synaptophysin. It was scored by nine pathologists, with an outcome of 77.78% thymic carcinoma and 22.22% type A thymoma. H, Resected multilobular tumour from the anterior mediastinum. The tumour was partly positive for CD5 and CD99, and negative for CD117. It was scored by 10 pathologists, with an outcome of 58% type B3 thymoma, 23% thymic carcinoma, 10% type AB thymoma, 8% type B2 thymoma, and 1% type A thymoma.

References

    1. de Jong WK, Blaauwgeers JL, Schaapveld M, Timens W, Klinkenberg TJ, Groen HJ. Thymic epithelial tumours: a population‐based study of the incidence, diagnostic procedures and therapy. Eur. J. Cancer 2008; 44; 123–130.
    1. Marx A, Chan JK, Coindre JM et al The 2015 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Thymus: continuity and changes. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015; 10; 1383–1395.
    1. Marx A, Ströbel P, Badve SS et al ITMIG Consensus Statement on the Use of the WHO Histological Classification of Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma: refined definitions, histological criteria and reporting. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2014; 9; 596–611.
    1. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Burke AP, Marx A, Nicholson AG, eds. World Health Organization classification of tumours of the lung, pleura, thymus and heart. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press, 2015.
    1. Bernatz PE, Harrison EG, Clagett OT. Thymoma: a clinicopathologic study. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 1961; 42; 424–444.
    1. Suster S, Moran CA. Thymoma, atypical thymoma, and thymic carcinoma. A novel conceptual approach to the classification of thymic epithelial neoplasms. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1999; 111; 826–833.
    1. Roden AC, Yi ES, Jenkins SM et al Reproducibility of 3 histologic classifications and 3 staging systems for thymic epithelial neoplasms and its effect on prognosis. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2015; 39; 427–441.
    1. Oselin K, Girard N, Lepik K et al Pathological discrepancies in the diagnosis of thymic epithelial tumors: the Tallinn‐Lyon experience. J. Thorac. Dis. 2019; 11; 456–464.
    1. Wang H, Sima CS, Beasley MB et al Classification of thymic epithelial neoplasms is still a challenge to thoracic pathologists: a reproducibility study using digital microscopy. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2014; 138; 658–663.
    1. Verghese ET, den Bakker MA, Campbell A et al Interobserver variation in the classification of thymic tumours—a multicentre study using the WHO classification system. Histopathology 2008; 53; 218–223.
    1. Rieker RJ, Hoegel J, Morresi‐Hauf A et al Histologic classification of thymic epithelial tumors: comparison of established classification schemes. Int. J. Cancer 2002; 98; 900–906.
    1. Zucali PA, Di Tommaso L, Petrini I et al Reproducibility of the WHO classification of thymomas: practical implications. Lung Cancer 2013; 79; 236–241.
    1. Fleiss J. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 1971; 76; 378–382.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33; 159–174.
    1. Girard N, Ruffini E, Marx A, Faivre‐Finn C, Peters S, ESMO Guidelines Committee . Thymic epithelial tumours: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann. Oncol. 2015; 26(Suppl. 5); v40–v55.
    1. Chen G, Marx A, Chen WH et al New WHO histologic classification predicts prognosis of thymic epithelial tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 200 thymoma cases from China. Cancer 2002; 95; 420–429.
    1. Park MS, Chung KY, Kim KD et al Prognosis of thymic epithelial tumors according to the new World Health Organization histologic classification. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2004; 78; 992–997; discussion 997–998.
    1. Okuda K, Moriyama S, Haneda H, Kawano O, Nakanishi R. Specific mutations in thymic epithelial tumors. Mediastinum 2017; 1; 16.
    1. Radovich M, Pickering CR, Felau I et al The integrated genomic landscape of thymic epithelial tumors. Cancer Cell 2018; 33; 244–258.
    1. Enkner F, Pichlhofer B, Zaharie AT et al Molecular profiling of thymoma and thymic carcinoma: genetic differences and potential novel therapeutic targets. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2017; 23; 551–564.
    1. Roden AC. Molecular changes are infrequent in thymic carcinomas but might represent targetable mutations. Mediastinum 2017; 1.
    1. Mukhopadhyay S, Feldman MD, Abels E et al Whole slide imaging versus microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology: a multicenter blinded randomized noninferiority study of 1992 cases (pivotal study). Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2018; 42; 39–52.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir