This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective To determine interrater variability in diagnosing individual muscle biopsy abnormalities and diagnosis.
Methods We developed a scoring tool to analyze consensus in muscle biopsy reading of an ad hoc workgroup of international experts. Twenty-four samples from patients with suspected idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) were randomly selected, providing sections that were stained with standard histologic and immunohistochemical methods. Sections were made available on an online platform, and experts were queried about myopathologic features within 4 pathologic domains: muscle fibers, inflammation, connective tissue, and vasculature. A short clinical presentation of cases was included, and experts were asked to give a tentative diagnosis of polymyositis, dermatomyositis, inclusion-body myositis, antisynthetase syndrome–related myositis, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy, nonspecific myositis, or other disease. Fleiss κ values, scoring interrater variability, showed the highest agreement within the muscle fiber and connective tissue domains.
Results Despite overall low κ values, moderate agreement was achieved for tentative diagnosis, supporting the idea of using holistic muscle biopsy interpretation rather than adding up individual features.
Conclusion The assessment of individual pathologic features needs to be standardized and harmonized and should be measured for sensitivity and specificity for subgroup classification. Standardizing the process of diagnostic muscle biopsy reading would allow identification of more homogeneous patient cohorts for upcoming treatment trials.
Glossary
- ENMC=
- European Neuromuscular Centre;
- IBM=
- inclusion-body myositis;
- IIM=
- idiopathic inflammatory myopathy;
- IMNM=
- immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy;
- NSM=
- nonspecific myositis
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
CME Course: NPub.org/cmelist
- Received September 25, 2018.
- Accepted in final form April 4, 2019.
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.