Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Placental pathology is key for investigating adverse pregnancy outcomes, however, lack of standardization in reporting has limited clinical utility. We evaluated a novel placental pathology synoptic report, comparing its robustness to narrative reports, and assessed interobserver agreement. METHODS: 100 singleton placentas were included. Histology slides were examined by 2 senior perinatal pathologists and 2 pathology residents using a synoptic report (32 lesions). Historical narrative reports were compared to synoptic reports. Kappa scores were calculated for interobserver agreement between senior, resident, and senior vs resident pathologists. RESULTS: Synoptic reporting detected 169 (51.4%) lesion instances initially not included in historical reports. Amongst senior pathologists, 64% of all lesions examined demonstrated fair-to-excellent agreement (Kappa ≥0.41), with only 26% of Kappas ≥0.41 amongst those examined by resident pathologists. Well-characterized lesions (e.g., chorioamnionitis) demonstrated higher agreement, with lower agreement for uncommon lesions and those previously shown to have poor consensus. DISCUSSION: Synoptic reporting is one proposed method to address issues in placenta pathology reporting. The synoptic report generally identifies more lesions compared to the narrative report, however clinical significance remains unclear. Interobserver agreement is likely related to differential in experience. Further efforts to improve overall standardization of placenta pathology reporting are needed.