A validation of placental pathology reports by ethnicity in New Zealand, through systematic analysis of histological slides

Abstract

IntroductionReliability studies of placental examination have shown differing interobserver agreement for certain pathological features, a lack of uniform reporting criteria and variable experience among pathologists. In previous analyses we have shown that placental pathology differs by ethnicity. This validation study was performed to investigate whether bias related to ethnicity is a feature of placental pathology reporting in New Zealand (NZ). Methods199 of 1726 eligible perinatal death cases between 2008 and 2017 were selected at random for this audit-type study, including 51 cases from South Asian, Māori and NZ European ethnicity and 46 cases from Pacific mothers. Stored histology slides were blinded and re-examined by an experienced perinatal pathologist, and linked to the corresponding original pathology report. Interobserver agreement (overall, by ethnicity and by gestational age) was described by proportional differences and kappa coefficients. ResultsTotal interobserver agreement between original placental reporting and the validation review was 89.7 %, which differed by pathological feature. There was generally more underreporting than overreporting (3.6 % and 6.7 %, respectively). There was little disagreement by ethnicity (decidual vasculopathy [p = 0.03]), although there were more differences by gestational age (villous morphology [p < 0.01], chorioamnionitis [p = 0.03], high-grade villitis of unknown etiology [p < 0.01], and placental haemorrhage [p = 0.03]). DiscussionNo systematic bias in placental pathology reporting in NZ was identified by ethnicity or gestational age, as observed differences could be related to the underlying prevalence of pathology. We identified more underreporting than overreporting of pathology in the original reports, emphasizing the importance of placental investigation by specialised perinatal pathologists.