title: Analyzing agreement patterns of intraoperative central nervous system lesion reporting according to type and grade.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Neuropathology centers are expected to offer a prompt and accurate intraoperative diagnosis regarding tumor/lesion type and grade on fresh unfixed tissue. Level of diagnostic accuracy according to type and grade and also, the experience at a new center has not been reported before.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this study is to review the agreement patterns according to tumor/lesion type and grade between intraoperative and final histopathologic diagnosis in central nervous system (CNS) lesion samples received by a newly established neuropathology center at a tertiary care neuropsychiatric hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  AGREEMENT BETWEEN INTRAOPERATIVE AND FINAL HISTOPATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS WAS CLASSIFIED AS: (I) Grade in agreement but type not in agreement; (II) grade not in agreement but type in agreement; (III) grade and type both not in agreement; (IV) grade and type both in agreement.
  
  
  METHODS
  Confidence interval (CI) of agreements was calculated for various categories of neoplastic as well as non-neoplastic lesions. CI was also calculated for groups where n × p and n × (1 - p) were more than 5, i.e., fulfilled the requirement of the central limit theorem.
  
  
  RESULTS
  On retrospective analysis of 333 cases, 284 (85.3%) cases were categorized as neoplastic while 49 (14.7%) cases were categorized as non-neoplastic. Among the neoplastic lesions agreement was seen in 237 (83.5%) cases while 47 (16.5%) cases showed disagreement. Similarly in non-neoplastic category; 46 (93.9%) cases showed agreement while 3 (6.15%) cases showed disagreement. Of the non-neoplastic lesions, one case fell into the agreement category I, 2 in category III and 46 in IV. Among neoplastic lesions, there were 21 cases in agreement category I, 17 in II, 9 in III and 237 in IV. On analyzing the accuracy of intraoperative reporting according to tumor type, the break up was: - Astrocytic: 2 (I), 16 (II), 2 (III), 86 (IV); oligodendroglial: 8 (I), 1 (II); ependymal: 2 (III), 6 (IV); embryonal: 23 (IV); cranial and spinal nerve tumors: 2 (II), 21 (IV); choroid plexus tumors: 4 (IV); meningeal tumors: 3 (I), 1 (III), 49 (IV); metastatic tumors: 3 (I), 17 (IV); cysts (tumor-like conditions): 14 (IV); neuronal and mixed neuronal glial tumors: 1 (III); malignant lymphoma: 1 (III); sellar tumors: 17 (IV); and mixed gliomas: 5 (I).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study identifies problem areas of CNS intraoperative reporting, in a new center, with reference to tumor typing and grading. It may forewarn upcoming centers of neuropathology about the potential problem areas of intraoperative reporting.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, New Delhi, India.
authors.forename: Sujata
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Chaturvedi
authors.forename: Ishita
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Pant
authors.forename: Rakesh
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Dua
authors.forename: Sanjeev
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Gupta
keywords: Central nervous system lesions; intraoperative reporting; new center