Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Is there a way for pathologists to decrease interobserver variability in the diagnosis of dysplasia?

Elizabeth Montgomery1

  • 1Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA. emontgom@jhmi.edu

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
|February 1, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Clinicopathologic features and prognostic factors in hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma.

Annals of diagnostic pathology·2026
Same author

Mycobacterial Spindle Cell Pseudotumor Presenting as a Pancreatic Head Mass: A Case Report.

Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)·2025
Same author

DNA Damage Repair Pathway Alterations and Immune Landscape Differences in Pediatric/Adolescent, Young Adult (AYA) and Adult Sarcomas.

Cancers·2025
Same author

Men's Voices on Long-Acting Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Delivery Modalities: Acceptability and Preferences Among Cisgender Men and Men Who Have Sex With Men in South Africa.

Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)·2025
Same author

A retrospective multi-site examination of chronic kidney disease using longitudinal laboratory results and metadata to identify clinical and financial risk.

BMC nephrology·2024
Same author

Prevalence and Clinicopathological Features of Autoimmune Metaplastic Atrophic Gastritis in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia: A Regional Study.

International journal of surgical pathology·2024
Same journal

Assessing Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 in Urothelial Carcinoma: Insights From Clinical Practice Into Scoring Criteria, Histologic Subtypes, and Genomic Characteristics Across Disease Sites.

Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Cross-Reactivity of TPIT Antibody Clone OTI2G1 in Chordoma: Structural Mechanisms and Diagnostic Implications.

Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Paracoccidioidomycosis at Autopsy: A Case Series and Literature Review.

Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Accuracy of Cytology Diagnosis for Well Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors: Assessment by the College of American Pathologists Non-Gynecologic Slide Program.

Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

Serum Immunofixation Electrophoresis Guidance Conflict: A Call to Harmonize.

Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine·2026
Same journal

In Reply.

Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine·2026
See all related articles

Screening patients with Barrett esophagus faces challenges, primarily in selecting appropriate patient groups. Endoscopist sampling errors pose a greater issue than pathologist agreement on less severe lesions.

Area of Science:

  • Gastroenterology
  • Pathology
  • Oncology

Background:

  • Barrett esophagus screening is crucial for early detection of esophageal cancer.
  • Current screening protocols face significant obstacles impacting efficacy.
  • Accurate patient selection and sample analysis are critical for effective surveillance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify and analyze the primary challenges in screening patients with Barrett esophagus.
  • To compare the impact of endoscopist sampling errors versus pathologist interobserver variation.
  • To highlight the need for improved methods in identifying high-risk patients for intensified surveillance.

Main Methods:

  • Review of current screening practices for Barrett esophagus.
  • Analysis of factors contributing to screening difficulties, including patient selection and sample interpretation.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of pathologist agreement on different grades of esophageal lesions.

    • Main Results:

    • Patient group selection is a major hurdle in Barrett esophagus screening.
    • Endoscopist sampling errors present a more significant challenge than pathologist variability for lower-grade lesions.
    • Pathologists show good agreement on high-grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma but not on lesser lesions.

    Conclusions:

    • Improving screening for Barrett esophagus requires addressing endoscopist sampling accuracy.
    • Development of adjunct markers is necessary to identify lower-grade lesions with progression potential.
    • Enhanced surveillance strategies are needed for patients with Barrett esophagus who are at higher risk of progression.