Abstract
Although controversial, diagnosis of luteal phase defect (LPD) includes the morphological assessment of endometrial development. This study was conducted to determine if refresher training in the histological criteria could improve the accuracy and interobserver reproducibility of endometrial dating. Seventy-eight endometrial biopsies were dated by a reference panel of two pathologists and then reviewed twice by a study panel of four pathologists. In the first review, usual practice was applied. Prior to the second review, they studied a standard document of histological criteria. Samples were dated as proliferative, secretory (post-ovulatory day, POD), menstrual, and undatable. Accuracy levels based on the reference dating and agreement levels using s values were calculated per review and compared. The s for overall dating was 0.683 in the first review and 0.696 in the second. The respective first and second review s values were 0.736 and 0.771 for proliferative, and 0.794 and 0.764 for secretory. Amongst those dated as secretory in the first and second reviews, respectively, 31 and 28% were assigned the same POD by any two panellists, 68 and 63% were dated to within 1 day, and 77 and 71% were dated to within 2 days. Accuracy levels per panellist for overall dating were very high in both reviews but were low for individual PODs. Accuracy and interobserver reproducibility were unaffected by refresher training, suggesting the limits of histological dating have been reached.