-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Reproducibility of Rejection Grading in Uterus Transplantation: A Multicenter Study
V. Broecker, M. Brännström, H. Bösmüller, E. Sticová, J. Malušková, A. Chiesa-Vottero, J. Mölne
Status neindexováno Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
od 2015
PubMed Central
od 2015
Europe PubMed Central
od 2015
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2015
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of rejection after uterus transplantation is based on histopathological examination of ectocervical biopsies. Inflammation at the stromal-epithelial interface is the backbone of the histopathological classification proposed by our group in 2017. However, the reproducibility of this grading scheme has not been tested, and it is unclear whether it covers the full morphological spectrum of rejection. METHODS: We present a multicenter study in which 5 pathologists from 4 uterus transplantation centers performed 2 rounds of grading on 145 and 48 cervical biopsies, respectively. Three of the centers provided biopsies. Additionally, the presence of perivascular stromal inflammation was recorded. During discussions after the first round, further histological lesions (venous endothelial inflammation and apoptosis) were identified for closer evaluation and added to the panel of lesions to score in the second round. All participants completed a questionnaire to explore current practices in handling and reporting uterus transplant biopsies. RESULTS: Cervical biopsies were commonly performed in all centers to monitor rejection. Intraobserver reproducibility of rejection grading (performed by 1 rater) was excellent, whereas interobserver reproducibility was moderate and did not improve in the second round. Reproducibility of perivascular stromal inflammation was moderate but unsatisfactory for venous endothelial inflammation and apoptosis. All lesions were more frequent in, but not restricted to, biopsies with rejection patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Grading of rejection in cervical biopsies is reproducible and applicable to biopsies from different centers. Diagnosis of rejection may be improved by adding further histological lesions to the grading system; however, lesions require rigorous consensus definition.
Department of Anatomic Pathology Cleveland Clinic Cleveland OH
Institute of Pathology and Neuropathology University Hospital Tübingen Tübingen Germany
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc23015220
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20231020093557.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 231010s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001535 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)37745947
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Broecker, Verena $u Department of Clinical Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden $1 https://orcid.org/0000000329804558
- 245 10
- $a Reproducibility of Rejection Grading in Uterus Transplantation: A Multicenter Study / $c V. Broecker, M. Brännström, H. Bösmüller, E. Sticová, J. Malušková, A. Chiesa-Vottero, J. Mölne
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of rejection after uterus transplantation is based on histopathological examination of ectocervical biopsies. Inflammation at the stromal-epithelial interface is the backbone of the histopathological classification proposed by our group in 2017. However, the reproducibility of this grading scheme has not been tested, and it is unclear whether it covers the full morphological spectrum of rejection. METHODS: We present a multicenter study in which 5 pathologists from 4 uterus transplantation centers performed 2 rounds of grading on 145 and 48 cervical biopsies, respectively. Three of the centers provided biopsies. Additionally, the presence of perivascular stromal inflammation was recorded. During discussions after the first round, further histological lesions (venous endothelial inflammation and apoptosis) were identified for closer evaluation and added to the panel of lesions to score in the second round. All participants completed a questionnaire to explore current practices in handling and reporting uterus transplant biopsies. RESULTS: Cervical biopsies were commonly performed in all centers to monitor rejection. Intraobserver reproducibility of rejection grading (performed by 1 rater) was excellent, whereas interobserver reproducibility was moderate and did not improve in the second round. Reproducibility of perivascular stromal inflammation was moderate but unsatisfactory for venous endothelial inflammation and apoptosis. All lesions were more frequent in, but not restricted to, biopsies with rejection patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Grading of rejection in cervical biopsies is reproducible and applicable to biopsies from different centers. Diagnosis of rejection may be improved by adding further histological lesions to the grading system; however, lesions require rigorous consensus definition.
- 590 __
- $a NEINDEXOVÁNO
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Brännström, Mats $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- 700 1_
- $a Bösmüller, Hans $u Institute of Pathology and Neuropathology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Sticová, Eva $u Clinical and Transplant Pathology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine (IKEM), Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Malušková, Jana $u Clinical and Transplant Pathology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine (IKEM), Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Chiesa-Vottero, Andres $u Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
- 700 1_
- $a Mölne, Johan $u Department of Clinical Pathology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Region Västra Götaland, Gothenburg, Sweden $u Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
- 773 0_
- $w MED00195744 $t Transplantation direct $x 2373-8731 $g Roč. 9, č. 10 (2023), s. e1535
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37745947 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20231010 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20231020093551 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1997049 $s 1201582
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-PubMed-not-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2023 $b 9 $c 10 $d e1535 $e 20230920 $i 2373-8731 $m Transplantation direct $n Transplant Direct $x MED00195744
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20231010