PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Distinguishing scarring (SA) versus non-scarring alopecia (NSA) may not be a simple procedure on either clinical or histopathological views.
UNASSIGNED: We sought to study the interobserver variability in the histopathological assessment of SA versus NSA, including clinical-pathological considerations.
UNASSIGNED: Two dermatopathologists independently interpreted the same set of 100 specimens (89 patients). The samples were serial sectioned and stained by hematoxylin and eosin and Verhöeff methods. The patients\' mean age was 46 years, with 13 being males and 76 females.
UNASSIGNED: In 16/100 samples, there was no consensus among the two examiners regarding SA versus NSA (weighted kappa = 0.6583; 95% CI); 3/16 patients were re-biopsied, and in the second sample, consensus was reached. In 76/89 patients, the anatomopathological examination was helpful in defining the SA versus NSA subtype. Of the 84 samples in which there was interobserver agreement, 4 which had been considered scarring in the routine pathological report were re-classified as non-scarring, whereas one biopsy, previously diagnosed as non-scarring, was now considered cicatricial due to the newly found areas of lichenoid inflammation in the infundibular epithelium.
UNASSIGNED: The ideal scalp examination may require deep serial biopsy sectioning, elastic tissue stain, re-biopsy, and strict clinical-evolutive correlation.
UNASSIGNED: We sought to study the interobserver variability in the histopathological assessment of SA versus NSA, including clinical-pathological considerations.
UNASSIGNED: Two dermatopathologists independently interpreted the same set of 100 specimens (89 patients). The samples were serial sectioned and stained by hematoxylin and eosin and Verhöeff methods. The patients\' mean age was 46 years, with 13 being males and 76 females.
UNASSIGNED: In 16/100 samples, there was no consensus among the two examiners regarding SA versus NSA (weighted kappa = 0.6583; 95% CI); 3/16 patients were re-biopsied, and in the second sample, consensus was reached. In 76/89 patients, the anatomopathological examination was helpful in defining the SA versus NSA subtype. Of the 84 samples in which there was interobserver agreement, 4 which had been considered scarring in the routine pathological report were re-classified as non-scarring, whereas one biopsy, previously diagnosed as non-scarring, was now considered cicatricial due to the newly found areas of lichenoid inflammation in the infundibular epithelium.
UNASSIGNED: The ideal scalp examination may require deep serial biopsy sectioning, elastic tissue stain, re-biopsy, and strict clinical-evolutive correlation.
摘要：
未经证实：从临床或组织病理学角度来看，区分瘢痕形成（SA）和非瘢痕性脱发（NSA）可能不是一个简单的程序。
UNASSIGNED：我们试图研究SA与NSA的组织病理学评估中的观察者间差异，包括临床病理学考虑。
UNASSIGNED：两名皮肤病理学家独立解释了同一组100个标本（89名患者）。将样品连续切片并通过苏木精和曙红和Verhöeff方法染色。病人的平均年龄是46岁,男性13人，女性76人。
未经评估：在16/100样品中，两位检查者对SA和NSA没有达成共识(加权κ=0.6583;95%CI);3/16患者重新活检,在第二个样本中，达成共识。在76/89名患者中，解剖病理学检查有助于确定SA和NSA亚型.在观察员之间达成共识的84个样本中，4在常规病理报告中被认为是瘢痕的，被重新分类为非瘢痕，而一次活检，以前被诊断为无疤痕，由于在漏斗上皮中新发现的苔藓样炎症区域，现在被认为是瘢痕性的。
UNASSIGNED：理想的头皮检查可能需要深度连续活检切片，弹性组织染色，重新活检,和严格的临床进化相关性。
UNASSIGNED：我们试图研究SA与NSA的组织病理学评估中的观察者间差异，包括临床病理学考虑。
UNASSIGNED：两名皮肤病理学家独立解释了同一组100个标本（89名患者）。将样品连续切片并通过苏木精和曙红和Verhöeff方法染色。病人的平均年龄是46岁,男性13人，女性76人。
未经评估：在16/100样品中，两位检查者对SA和NSA没有达成共识(加权κ=0.6583;95%CI);3/16患者重新活检,在第二个样本中，达成共识。在76/89名患者中，解剖病理学检查有助于确定SA和NSA亚型.在观察员之间达成共识的84个样本中，4在常规病理报告中被认为是瘢痕的，被重新分类为非瘢痕，而一次活检，以前被诊断为无疤痕，由于在漏斗上皮中新发现的苔藓样炎症区域，现在被认为是瘢痕性的。
UNASSIGNED：理想的头皮检查可能需要深度连续活检切片，弹性组织染色，重新活检,和严格的临床进化相关性。
