Resumen de Challenges in the assessment of epithelial dysplasia in oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesion: inter and intra-observer variability of the WHO criteria and binary system
Letícia-Côgo Marques, Pâmella-de Pinho Montovani, Lúcio-Souza Gonçalves, Karin-Soares Cunha, Arley Silva-Junior, Danielle-Castex Conde
Assessment of oral epithelial dysplasia is the gold standard for investigating the risk of malignant progression. The World Health Organization (WHO) methods and the binary system have limitations. This study assess the inter- and intra-observer variability of the architectural and cytological criteria and the classification of the presence and degree of epithelial dysplasia in oral lichen planus (OLP) and oral lichenoid lesion (OLL), using both the 2017 WHO criteria and the binary system.
The sample consisted of 65 biopsies from lesions classified as OLP and OLL according to the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (AAOMP) criteria. The histological slides were reevaluated by two oral pathologists.
The individual alterations with most inter-observer disagreement were atypical mitotic figures (43.1%), loss of cohesion between epithelial cells (38.5%) and drop shape rete ridges ridges (38.5%). Inter-observer agreement analysis did not show statistically significant agreement regarding the classification of epithelial dysplasia grade by WHO criteria, only regarding the binary system classification (k=0.257; p=0.035). Intra-observer agreement analysis by evaluator 1 showed that the classification of epithelial dysplasia grade according to both methods had statistically significant agreement (k=0.546; p=0.004, k=0.861; p<0.001). Considering evaluator 2, only the evaluation of the WHO system classification showed statistically significant agreement (k=0.593; p=0.010).
The evaluation of epithelial dysplasia is subjective and focal changes and inflammatory infiltrate, characteristic of OLP and OLL, can increase the degree of disagreement among evaluators. The binary system presents better inter-observer agreement, while the WHO system presents better intra-observer agreement.
