Michael F. Dixon

The Sydney System for the classification of gastritis emphasized the importance of combining topographical, morphological, and etiological information into a schema that would help to generate reproducible and clinically useful diagnoses. To reappraise the Sydney System 4 years after its introduction, a group of gastrointestinal pathologists from various parts of the world met in Houston, Texas, in September 1994. The aims of the workshop were (a) to establish an agreed terminology of gastritis; (b) to identify, define, and attempt to resolve some of the problems associated with the Sydney System. This article introduces the Sydney System as it was revised at the Houston Gastritis Workshop and represents the consensus of the participants. Overall, the principles and grading of the Sydney System were only slightly modified, the grading being aided by the provision of a visual analogue scale. The terminology of the final classification has been improved to emphasize the distinction between the atrophic and nonatrophic stomach; the names used for each entity were selected because they are generally acceptable to both pathologists and gastroenterologists. In addition to the main categories and atrophic and nonatrophic gastritis, the special or distinctive forms are described and their respective diagnostic criteria are provided. The article includes practical guidelines for optimal biopsy sampling of the stomach, for the use of the visual analogue scales for grading the histopathologic features, and for the formulation of a comprehensive standardized diagnosis. A glossary of gastritis-related terms as used in this article is provided.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the potential variability in rates of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement between different surgeons and time periods and to determine the suitability of using CRM status as an immediate predictor of outcome after rectal cancer surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: After disease stage has been taken into account, survival in rectal cancer has been shown to be very variable between surgeons and institutions. One of the major factors influencing survival is local recurrence, and this in turn is strongly related to inadequate tumor excision, particularly at the CRM. METHODS: In a study involving 608 patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer in Leeds during the 12-year period 1986 to 1997, the authors examined the role of CRM status as an immediate predictor of likely outcome, paying particular attention to its relationships with different surgeons and time periods. RESULTS: Of 586 patients on whom full clinical follow-up was obtained, 165 (28.2%) had CRM involvement by carcinoma on pathologic examination. Up to the end of 1998, 105 (17.9%) patients had developed local recurrence. A significantly higher proportion (38.2%) of CRM-positive patients developed local recurrence than CRM-negative ones (10.0%). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed significant improvements in survival for CRM-negative patients over CRM-positive patients. Survival analysis in relation to two gastrointestinal surgeons and a group of other surgeons showed survival improvements that paralleled a reduction in the rates of CRM involvement for the two gastrointestinal surgeons during the period of the study. No improvement in survival or reduction in rates of CRM involvement was seen in the group of other surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that CRM status may be used as an immediate predictor of survival after rectal cancer surgery and serves as a useful indicator of the quality of surgery. The frequency of CRM involvement can be used both for overall surgical audit and for monitoring the value of training programs in improving rectal surgery by individual surgeons. Its use in the current MRC CR07 study is valid and the best indicator of a requirement for further local therapy.

International consensus meetings in Padova and Vienna have attempted to rationalise the grading and classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia (GEN). With its minor adjustments, the Vienna classification of GEN seeks to be more closely in tune with patient management and it is hoped that it is not seen as fiddling around with terms but as a genuine contribution to patient care.