4.5 Article

Observer Variation in the Application of the Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal Gland Scaled Score

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 599-608

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318190d12e

Keywords

Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal Gland Scaled Score; PASS; pheochromocytoma; malignant; benign; observer variation; paraganglioma

Funding

  1. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Morphologic determination of the malignant potential of adrenal pheochromocytoma is a challenging problem in surgical pathology. A multiparameter Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal Gland Scaled Score (PASS) wits recently developed based on a comprehensive study of a single institutional cohort of 100 cases. Assignment of a PASS was proposed to be useful for identifying pheochromocytomas with potential to metasta-size, which defines malignancy according to the current World Health Organization terminology. A PASS is derived by evaluating multiple morphologic parameters to obtain a scaled score based on the summed weighted importance of each. Despite the proposal of this system several years ago, few studies have since examined its robustness and, in particular, the potential for observer variation inherent in the interpretation and assessment of these morphologic criteria. We further examined the utility of PASS by reviewing an independent single institutional cohort of adrenal pheochromocytomas as evaluated by 5 multi-institutional pathologists with at least 10 years experience in endocrine pathology. We found significant interobserver and intraobserver variation in assignment of PASS with variable interpretation of the underlying components. We consequently suggest that PASS requires further refinement and validation. We cannot currently recommend its use for clinical prognostication.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available