Interobserver Variation in Evaluating Perineural Invasion for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Phase 2 Survey Study

Head and Neck Pathology - Tập 15 - Trang 935-944 - 2021
Flora Yan1, Yi-Shing Lisa Cheng2, Nora Katabi3, Shaun A. Nguyen1, Huey-Shys Chen4, Patrick Morgan5, Kathy Zhang6, Angela C. Chi7
1Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA
2Department of Diagnostic Sciences, Texas A & M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, USA
3Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
4College of Medical and Health Care, HungKuang University, Taichung, Taiwan
5Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Division, Sylvester Cancer Center/University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, USA
6Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA
7Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA

Tóm tắt

In a previous study, we found interobserver agreement among 88 board-certified pathologists evaluating perineural invasion (PNI) in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) was fair, and participants most often used the following criteria: (1) tumor invading the perineurium, (2) tumor surrounding a nerve. In this study, we aimed to determine whether application of these most commonly used criteria may improve interobserver agreement. 512 pathologists were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Participants were asked to assess the presence/absence of PNI in a set of OSCC photomicrographs by applying each of the two criteria above. The survey was completed by 84 board-certified pathologists [mean age: 52 years (range 31–81), mean years in practice: 19 (range 1–56)]. Interobserver agreement was moderate (k = 0.46, 95% CI 0.45–0.46) when using definition #1 (tumor invading the perineurium) and fair (k = 0.24, 95% CI 0.23–0.25) when using definition #2 (tumor surrounding a nerve). By comparison, interobserver agreement was fair (k = 0.36, 95% CI 0.35–0.37) among phase 1 participants asked to evaluate these photomicrographs as they would in their pathology practice. Differences in kappa between definition #1 and phase 1, definition #2 and phase 2, and definition #1 and #2 were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Compared to our prior study based on pathologists’ personal views, the current study shows improved interobserver agreement with application of the criterion, “tumor invading the perineurium.” However, further work is needed to delineate concise, objective, and more reproducible criteria for histopathologic assessment of PNI.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Binmadi NO, Basile JR. Perineural invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a discussion of significance and review of the literature. Oral Oncol. 2011;47:1005–10. Varsha BK, Radhika MB, Makarla S, Kuriakose MA, Kiran GS, Padmalatha GV. Perineural invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma: Case series and review of literature. J Oral MaxillofacPathol. 2015;19:335–41. Chatzistefanou I, Lubek J, Markou K, Ord RA. The role of perineural invasion in treatment decisions for oral cancer patients: a review of the literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017;45:821–5. Mizrachi A, Migliacci JC, Montero PH, McBride S, Shah JP, Patel SG, et al. Neck recurrence in clinically node-negative oral cancer: 27-year experience at a single institution. Oral Oncol. 2018;78:94–101. National Comprehensive Cancer Network NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): Head and neck cancers, version 1. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/head-and-neck_blocks.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2020. Saidak Z, Lailler C, Clatot F, Galmiche A. Perineural invasion in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: background, mechanisms, and prognostic implications. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;28:90–5. Chi AC, Katabi N, Chen HS, Cheng YL. Interobserver variation among pathologists in evaluating perineural invasion for oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol. 2016;10:451–64. Dunn M, Morgan MB, Beer TW. Perineural invasion: identification, significance, and a standardized definition. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35:214–21. Liebig C, Ayala G, Wilks JA, Berger DH, Albo D. Perineural invasion in cancer: a review of the literature. Cancer. 2009;115:3379–91. Batsakis JG. Nerves and neurotropic carcinomas. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1985;94:426–7. Fagan JJ, Collins B, Barnes L, D’Amico F, Myers EN, Johnson JT. Perineural invasion in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:637–40. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276–82. Hasmat S, Ebrahimi A, Gao K, Low TH, Palme C, Gupta R, et al. Multifocal perineural invasion is a better prognosticator than depth of invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2019;41:3992–9. Berdugo J, Thompson LDR, Purgina B, Sturgis CD, Tuluc M, Seethala R, et al. Measuring depth of invasion in early squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue: positive deep margin, extratumoral perineural invasion, and other challenges. Head Neck Pathol. 2019;13:154–61. Chen SH, Zhang BY, Zhou B, Zhu CZ, Sun LQ, Feng YJ. Perineural invasion of cancer: a complex crosstalk between cells and molecules in the perineural niche. Am J Cancer Res. 2019;9:1–21. Schmitd LB, Beesley LJ, Russo N, Bellile EL, Inglehart RC, Liu M, et al. Redefining perineural invasion: integration of biology with clinical outcome. Neoplasia. 2018;20:657–67. Saidak Z, Clatot F, Chatelain D, Galmiche A. A gene expression profile associated with perineural invasion identifies a subset of HNSCC at risk of post-surgical recurrence. Oral Oncol. 2018;86:53–60.