Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists

Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) applies specific diagnostic criteria to designate a monoclonal endometrial preinvasive glandular proliferation known from previous studies to confer a 45-fold increased risk for endometrial cancer. In this international study we estimate accuracy and precision of EIN diagnosis among 20 reviewing pathologists in different practice environments, and with differing levels of experience and training. Sixty-two endometrial biopsies diagnosed as benign, EIN, or adenocarcinoma by consensus of two expert subspecialty pathologists were used as a reference comparison to assess diagnostic accuracy of 20 reviewing pathologists. Interobserver reproducibility among the 20 reviewers provided a measure of diagnostic precision. Before evaluating cases, observers were self-trained by reviewing published textbook and/or online EIN diagnostic guidelines. Demographics of the reviewing pathologists, and their impressions regarding implementation of EIN terminology were recorded. Seventy-nine percent of the 20 reviewing pathologists' diagnoses were exactly concordant with the expert consensus (accuracy). The interobserver weighted kappa values of 3-class EIN scheme (benign, EIN, carcinoma) diagnoses between expert consensus and each of reviewing pathologists averaged 0.72 (reproducibility, or precision). Reviewing pathologists demonstrated one of three diagnostic styles, which varied in the repertoire of diagnoses commonly used, and their nonrandom response to potentially confounding diagnostic features such as endometrial polyp, altered differentiation, background hormonal effects, and technically poor preparations. EIN diagnostic strategies can be learned and implemented from standard teaching materials with a high degree of reproducibility, but is impacted by the personal diagnostic style of each pathologist in responding to potential diagnostic confounders

Assessment of Fatty Acid Allocation in Plasma and Tissues in Piglets, Using Feed Supplemented with Byproducts from Processed Olive Mill Wastewater

BACKGROUND/AIM: A previous study revealed the improvement of redox status in blood and tissues of young piglets (ablactation period), that consumed feed containing polyphenolic additives from byproducts of processed olive mill wastewater (OMWW). The polyphenolic additives strengthened the antioxidant defense of the piglets. Herein we analyzed the fatty acid (FA) composition of these animals in various tissues.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The steps followed during the analysis were: Preparation and isolation of byproducts containing polyphenolic compounds from OMWW processing, silage and piglet feed preparation, blood and tissue collection, fatty acid methyl esters synthesis and GC/MS analysis.RESULTS: The young piglets, that consumed feed containing polyphenolic additives from byproducts of processed OMWW, were found to have a decreased ω6/ω3 ratio, compared to samples of the control group. For example, in the quadriceps tissue the control group has a ω6/ω3 ratio of 10.1, while in the polyphenolic group this ratio was decreased to 2.93. Regarding the ratio of UFA/SFA, no significant differences were observed. Finally, the polyphenolic group exhibited almost in all tissues lower values of the ratio of PUFA/MUFA than the control group. Copyright © 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

Efficient Photon Collection from a Nitrogen Vacancy Center in a Circular Bullseye Grating

Efficient collection of the broadband fluorescence from the diamond nitrogen vacancy (NV) center is essential for a range of applications in sensing, on-demand single photon generation, and quantum information processing. Here, we introduce a circular “bullseye” diamond grating which enables a collected photon rate of (2.7 ± 0.09) × 10⁶ counts per second from a single NV with a spin coherence time of 1.7 ± 0.1 ms. Back-focal-plane studies indicate efficient redistribution of the NV photoluminescence into low-NA modes by the bullseye grating

Reproducibility of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis is good, but influenced by the diagnostic style of pathologists

Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) applies specific diagnostic criteria to designate a monoclonal endometrial preinvasive glandular proliferation known from previous studies to confer a 45-fold increased risk for endometrial cancer. In this international study we estimate accuracy and precision of EIN diagnosis among 20 reviewing pathologists in different practice environments, and with differing levels of experience and training. Sixty-two endometrial biopsies diagnosed as benign, EIN, or adenocarcinoma by consensus of two expert subspecialty pathologists were used as a reference comparison to assess diagnostic accuracy of 20 reviewing pathologists. Interobserver reproducibility among the 20 reviewers provided a measure of diagnostic precision. Before evaluating cases, observers were self-trained by reviewing published textbook and/or online EIN diagnostic guidelines. Demographics of the reviewing pathologists, and their impressions regarding implementation of EIN terminology were recorded. Seventy-nine percent of the 20 reviewing pathologists' diagnoses were exactly concordant with the expert consensus (accuracy). The interobserver weighted kappa values of 3-class EIN scheme (benign, EIN, carcinoma) diagnoses between expert consensus and each of reviewing pathologists averaged 0.72 (reproducibility, or precision). Reviewing pathologists demonstrated one of three diagnostic styles, which varied in the repertoire of diagnoses commonly used, and their nonrandom response to potentially confounding diagnostic features such as endometrial polyp, altered differentiation, background hormonal effects, and technically poor preparations. EIN diagnostic strategies can be learned and implemented from standard teaching materials with a high degree of reproducibility, but is impacted by the personal diagnostic style of each pathologist in responding to potential diagnostic confounders. Modern Pathology (2012) 25, 877-884; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2011.220; published online 3 February 201