Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection

OBJECTIVES:Needle liver biopsy has been shown to have a high rate of sampling error in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver diseases. In these cases, the sample of liver tissue does not reflect the true degree of inflammation, fibrosis, or cirrhosis, despite an adequate sample size. The aim of this study was to determine the rate and extent of sampling error in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection, and to assess the intraobserver variation with the commonly used scoring system proposed by Scheuer and modified by Batts and Ludwig.METHODS:A total of 124 patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection underwent simultaneous laparoscopy-guided biopsies of the right and left hepatic lobes. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and with trichrome. The slides were blindly coded and randomly divided among two hepatopathologists. Inflammation and fibrosis were scored according to the standard grading (inflammation) and staging (fibrosis) method based on the modified Scheuer system. Following the interpretation, the slides were uncoded to compare the results of the right and left lobes. Fifty of the samples were blindly resubmitted to each of the pathologists to determine the intraobserver variation.RESULTS:Thirty of 124 patients (24.2%) had a difference of at least one grade, and 41 of 124 patients (33.1%) had a difference of at least one stage between the right and left lobes. In 18 patients (14.5%), interpretation of cirrhosis was given in one lobe, whereas stage 3 fibrosis was given in the other. A difference of two stages or two grades was found in only three (2.4%) and two (1.6%) patients, respectively. Of the 50 samples that were examined twice, the grading by each pathologist on the second examination differed from the first examination in 0% and 4%, and the staging differed in 6% and 10%, respectively. All observed variations were of one grade or one stage.CONCLUSIONS:Liver biopsy samples taken from the right and left hepatic lobes differed in histological grading and staging in a large proportion of chronic hepatitis C virus patients; however, differences of more than one stage or grade were uncommon. A sampling error may have led to underdiagnosis of cirrhosis in 14.5% of the patients. These differences could not be attributed to intraobserver variation, which appeared to be low.

[1]  E. Schiff,et al.  The role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis of cirrhosis. , 1996, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[2]  K. Ishak,et al.  Histological grading and staging of chronic hepatitis. , 1995 .

[3]  E. Brunt,et al.  Grading and staging the histopathological lesions of chronic hepatitis: The Knodell histology activity index and beyond , 2000, Hepatology.

[4]  P. Dailey,et al.  Hepatitis C virus RNA quantification in right and left lobes of the liver in patients with chronic hepatitis C , 1996, Journal of viral hepatitis.

[5]  H. Nord,et al.  Biopsy diagnosis of cirrhosis: blind percutaneous versus guided direct vision techniques--a review. , 1982, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[6]  A. H. Baggenstoss,et al.  Morphologic and etiologic diagnoses from hepatic biopsies without clinical data. , 1966, Medicine.

[7]  K. Batts,et al.  Chronic hepatitis. An update on terminology and reporting. , 1995, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  D. Peura,et al.  Diagnostic laparoscopy: a prospective review of 100 cases. , 1989, The American journal of gastroenterology.

[9]  Neil Kaplowitz,et al.  Formulation and application of a numerical scoring system for assessing histological activity in asymptomatic chronic active hepatitis , 1981, Hepatology.

[10]  J. Bordas,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of peritoneoscopy and liver biopsy in the diagnosis of cirrhosis , 1974, Gut.

[11]  N. Womack.  Biopsy of the liver. , 1947, North Carolina medical journal.

[12]  B. Maharaj,et al.  Complications associated with percutaneous needle biopsy of the liver when one, two or three specimens are taken. , 1992, Postgraduate medical journal.

[13]  P. Schlichting,et al.  Liver biopsy in chronic aggressive hepatitis. Diagnostic reproducibility in relation to size of specimen. , 1983, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.

[14]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[15]  E. Mezey,et al.  Sampling variability on percutaneous liver biopsy. , 1979, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  J. Goldin,et al.  Intra-observer and inter-observer variation in the histopathological assessment of chronic viral hepatitis. , 1996, Journal of hepatology.

[17]  J. Ludwig,et al.  The nomenclature of chronic active hepatitis: an obituary. , 1993, Gastroenterology.

[18]  P. Scheuer,et al.  Classification of chronic viral hepatitis: a need for reassessment. , 1991, Journal of hepatology.

[19]  P. Schlichting,et al.  Reproducibility of liver biopsy diagnosis in relation to the size of the specimen. , 1980, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.

[20]  J. Hoofnagle,et al.  Classification of chronic hepatitis: Diagnosis, grading and staging , 1994, Hepatology.

[21]  G. Morgan,et al.  Introduction to inferential statistics and hypothesis testing. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

[22]  L. Johnson,et al.  Liver surface characteristics as observed during laparoscopy correlated with biopsy findings. , 1978, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[23]  J. Bruzzi,et al.  Liver biopsy. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  P. Silcocks.  Some issues in observer error studies in pathology. , 1992, The Journal of pathology.