Interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of anal dysplasia: comparison between gastrointestinal and gynaecological pathologists and utility of consensus conferences.

AIMS: Management of anal dysplasia relies upon the accurate diagnosis of anal biopsy specimens. As institutions move towards subspecialty signout (SSSO), decisions must be made regarding whether to assign anal biopsies to the gastrointestinal (GI) or gynaecological (GYN) pathology service.

MATERIALS AND

RESULTS

We identified 200 archival tissue biopsies of anal mucosa and circulated them among three GI pathologists and three GYN pathologists. Each pathologist separately scored each biopsy as normal, atypical, low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion (LSIL) or high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion (HSIL). Every case that was called HSIL by at least one pathologist was stained with p16 immunostain and a 'gold standard' interpretation of whether or not a case represented HSIL was made. The GI pathologists agreed on 97 (49%) cases prior to consensus; the GYN pathologists agreed on 33 (17%). The sensitivities of the three GI pathologists in detecting HSIL against the 'gold standard' were 47, 100 and 21% and for the GYN pathologists the sensitivities were 74, 89 and 84%; the sensitivities of the GI and GYN consensus diagnoses were 74% each. The specificities of the three GI pathologists in detecting HSIL were 99, 90 and 100% and for the GYN pathologists the specificities were 99, 92 and 91%; the specificities of both the GI and GYN consensus diagnoses were 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

A mild to moderate degree of interobserver variability exists in the diagnosis of anal dysplasia among pathologists. Our study indicates the utility of some form of consensus conference, as overall agreement among GI pathologists and among GYN pathologists improved following in-person consensus.