This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

BackgroundDysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) biopsies is associated with low observer agreement among general pathologists. Therefore, expert review is advised. We are developing a web-based, national expert review panel for histological review of BE biopsies.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to create benchmark quality criteria for future members.MethodsFive expert BE pathologists, with 10–30 years of BE experience, weekly handling 5–10 cases (25% dysplastic), assessed a case set of 60 digitalized cases, enriched for dysplasia. Each case contained all slides from one endoscopy (non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), n = 21; low-grade dysplasia (LGD), n = 20; high-grade dysplasia (HGD), n = 19). All cases were randomized and assessed twice followed by group discussions to create a consensus diagnosis. Outcome measures: percentage of ‘indefinite for dysplasia’ (IND) diagnoses, intra-observer agreement, and agreement with the consensus ‘gold standard’ diagnosis.ResultsMean percentage of IND diagnoses was 8% (3–14%) and mean intra-observer agreement was 0.84 (0.66–1.02). Mean agreement with the consensus diagnosis was 90% (95% prediction interval (PI) 82–98%).ConclusionExpert pathology review of BE requires the scoring of a limited number of IND cases, consistency of assessment and a high agreement with a consensus gold standard diagnosis. These benchmark quality criteria will be used to assess the performance of other pathologists joining our panel.

AimsThe histopathological diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) is associated with poor interobserver agreement and guidelines dictate expert review. To facilitate nationwide expert review in the Netherlands, a web-based digital review panel has been set up, which currently consists of eight ‘core’ pathologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate if other pathologists from the Dutch BO expert centres qualify for the expert panel by assessing their performance in 80 consecutive LGD reviews submitted to the panel.MethodsPathologists independently assessed digital slides in two phases. Both phases consisted of 40 cases, with a group discussion after phase I. For all cases, a previous consensus diagnosis made by five core pathologists was available, which was used as reference. The following criteria were used: (1) percentage of ‘indefinite for dysplasia’ diagnoses, (2) percentage agreement with consensus diagnosis and (3) proportion of cases with a consensus diagnosis of dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic. Benchmarks were based on scores of the core pathologists.ResultsAfter phase I, 1/7 pathologists met the benchmark score for all quality criteria, yet three pathologists only marginally failed the agreement with consensus diagnosis (score 68.3%, benchmark 69%). After a group discussion and phase II, 5/6 remaining aspirant panel members qualified with all scores within the benchmark range.ConclusionsThe Dutch BO review panel now consists of 14 pathologists, who—after structured assessments and group discussions—can be considered homogeneous in their review of biopsies with LGD.

Background and Aims: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is accompanied by an increased risk of developing esophageal cancer. Accurate risk-stratification is warranted to improve endoscopic surveillance. Most data available on risk factors is derived from tertiary care centers or from cohorts with limited surveillance time or surveillance quality. The aim of this study was to assess endoscopic and clinical risk factors for progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in a large prospective cohort of BE patients from community hospitals supported by an overarching infrastructure to ensure optimal surveillance quality.Methods: A well-defined prospective multicenter cohort study was initiated in six community hospitals in the Amsterdam region in 2003. BE patients were identified by PALGA search and included in a prospective surveillance program with a single endoscopist performing all endoscopies at each hospital. Planning and data collection was performed by experienced research nurses who attended all endoscopies. Endpoint was progression to HGD/EAC.Results: Nine hundred eighty-five patients were included for analysis. During median follow-up of 7.9 years (IQR 4.1-12.5) 67 patients were diagnosed with HGD (n = 28) or EAC (n = 39), progression rate 0.78% per patient-year. As a clinical risk factor age at time of endoscopy was associated with neoplastic progression (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03-1.08). Maximum Barrett length and low-grade dysplasia (LGD) at baseline were endoscopic predictors of progression (HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09-1.21 and HR 2.36; 95% CI 1.29-4.33).This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.