Goblet cell carcinoid of the appendix - An interobserver variability study using two proposed classification systems.

Goblet cell carcinoid (GCC) is an uncommon tumor of the vermiform appendix. Due to a broad spectrum of morphological differentiation, subclassification and grading of GCCs remains an area of controversy. Two separate systems have proposed classifying GCC tumors into three (classical GCC; adenocarcinoma ex-GCC, signet ring cell type; adenocarcinoma ex-GCC, poorly differentiated carcinoma type) OR two subgroups (low and high grade GCC) based on morphological criteria. We independently compared the inter-observer variability associated with each classification system. Overall, both systems had moderate interobserver agreement, with the two-tiered system (κ=0.54) performing slightly better than the three-tiered system (κ=0.42). GI-specialist pathologists had substantial agreement for both two and three-tiered systems (κ=0.65 vs. 0.65). Non-GI trained pathologists had lower overall agreement than GI trained pathologists, but their agreement was better using the two-tiered system (κ=0.44) than the three-tiered system (κ=0.22). A sub-analysis of 6 cases with a high rate of discordant classification revealed several challenges that exist in applying current criteria, including differentiating "goblet" vs. "signet ring" cell morphology, applying a 1 mm2 criteria to multifocal non-contiguous glandular and single infiltrating cell architecture, differentiating fibro-inflammatory stroma from desmoplastic stroma, and solid architecture in cases with abundant extracellular mucin, and distinguishing "reactive" nuclear atypia from true "cytologic atypia". Despite these challenges, the study identified better agreement among GI pathologists than non-GI trained pathologists. While GI pathologist review may be helpful, further research on objective classification criteria remains an area of interest.

Informed consent for blood transfusion: what do medicine residents tell? What do patients understand?

Blood transfusion is a common intervention in the hospital setting, and its benefits may not be clear but it has associated risks. Despite this, transfusion consent may not be obtained satisfactorily. We assessed transfusion consent effectiveness by comparing information given by residents with information understood by patients who receive transfusions. Medicine department residents who obtained consent were surveyed via telephone in conjunction with bedside surveys of adult inpatients who received transfusions. A total of 43 patient and 34 resident surveys were completed. Deficiencies in the transfusion consent process were noted. Discussed transfusion benefits (such as wound healing) were not always true benefits whereas some important risks (such as transfusion-related acute lung injury) were infrequently conferred. Risks were more often reported as "not discussed" than benefits. Only a few participants were aware of the hospital's Transfusion Health Guide, which provides information on transfusion benefits, risks, and alternatives.