Histopathology reporting of temporal artery biopsy specimens for giant cell arteritis: results of a modified Delphi study.

Autor:	Taze D; Department of Histopathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK dilek.taze@nhs.net.; Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK., Chakrabarty A; Department of Histopathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK., Venkateswaran R; Department of Rheumatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK., Hartley C; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK., Harden C; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK., Morgan AW; Department of Histopathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK., Mackie SL; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.; Department of Rheumatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK., Griffin KJ; Department of Histopathology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.; Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of clinical pathology [J Clin Pathol] 2024 Jun 19; Vol. 77 (7), pp. 464-470. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 19.
DOI:	10.1136/jcp-2023-208810
Abstrakt:	The temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is regarded as the gold-standard test in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). There is a lack of agreement among experienced pathologists regarding the diagnostic features and classification of inflammation observed in TAB sections in the diagnosis of GCA. Aims: The aim of this research study was to establish consensus on the key parameters which should be included in a standardised reporting proforma for TAB specimens. We specifically investigated factors pertaining to clinical information, specimen handling and microscopic pathological features. Methods: A modified Delphi process, comprising three survey rounds and three virtual consensus group meetings, was undertaken by 13 UK-based pathology or ophthalmology consultants, with a 100% response rate across the three rounds. Initial statements were formulated after a literature review and participants were asked to rate their agreement using a nine-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as an agreement of ≥70% and individual feedback was provided after each round, together with data on the distribution of group responses. Results: Overall, 67 statements reached consensus and 17 statements did not. The participants agreed on the core microscopic features to be included in a pathology report and felt that a proforma would facilitate consistent reporting practices. Conclusions: Our work revealed uncertainty surrounding the correlation between clinical parameters (eg, laboratory markers of inflammation and steroid therapy duration) and microscopic findings, and we propose areas for future research. Competing Interests: Competing interests: SLM reports consultancy on behalf of her institution for Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, AbbVie and AstraZeneca; speaker fees received by her institution from Pfizer, Chugai and Vifor; and support from Roche to attend EULAR2019 and Pfizer to attend ACR2021. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu