Literature DB >> 10071228

Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists from 12 countries in diagnosing breast disease and reporting prognostic features of carcinomas. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology.

J P Sloane1, I Amendoeira, N Apostolikas, J P Bellocq, S Bianchi, W Boecker, G Bussolati, D Coleman, C E Connolly, V Eusebi, C De Miguel, P Dervan, R Drijkoningen, C W Elston, D Faverly, A Gad, J Jacquemier, M Lacerda, J Martinez-Penuela, C Munt, J L Peterse, F Rank, M Sylvan, V Tsakraklides, B Zafrani.   

Abstract

A detailed analysis of the consistency with which pathologists from 12 different European countries diagnose and classify breast disease was undertaken as part of the quality assurance programme of the European Breast Screening Pilot Network funded by the Europe against Cancer Programme. Altogether 107 cases were examined by 23 pathologists in 4 rounds. Kappa statistics for major diagnostic categories were: benign (not otherwise specified) 0.74, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) 0.27, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 0.87 and invasive carcinoma 0.94. ADH was the majority diagnosis in only 2 cases but was diagnosed by at least 2 participants in another 14, in 9 of which the majority diagnosis was benign (explaining the relatively low kappa for this category). DCIS in 4 (all low nuclear grade) and invasive carcinoma (a solitary 1-mm focus) in 1. The histological features of these cases were extremely variable; although one feature that nearly all shared was the presence of cells with small, uniform, hyperchromatic nuclei and a high nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio. The majority diagnosis was DCIS in 33 cases; kappa for classifying by nuclear grade was 0.38 using three categories and 0.46 when only two (high and other) were used. When ADH was included with low nuclear grade DCIS there was only a slight improvement in kappa. Size measurement of DCIS was less consistent than that of invasive carcinoma. The majority diagnosis was invasive carcinoma in 57 cases, the size of the majority being 100% in 49. The remainder were either special subtypes (adenoid cystic, tubular, colloid, secretory, ductal/medullary) or possible microinvasive carcinomas. Subtyping was most consistent for mucinous (kappa, 0.92) and least consistent for medullary carcinomas (kappa, 0.56). Consistency of grading using the Nottingham method was moderate (kappa=0.53) and consistency of diagnosing vascular invasion, fair (kappa=0.38). There was no tendency for consistency to improve from one round to the next, suggesting that further improvements are unlikely without changes in guidelines or methodology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10071228     DOI: 10.1007/s004280050297

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  19 in total

Review 1.  The basic pathology of human breast cancer.

Authors:  E Mallon; P Osin; N Nasiri; I Blain; B Howard; B Gusterson
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.673

Review 2.  Practical implications of gene-expression-based assays for breast oncologists.

Authors:  Aleix Prat; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Accuracy of typing and grading invasive mammary carcinomas on core needle biopsy compared with the excisional specimen.

Authors:  Victor Piana de Andrade; Helenice Gobbi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2004-10-08       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  [Experiences of the Bavarian mammography screening program].

Authors:  J Nährig; H Höfler; S H Heywang-Köbrunner; N Prat; D Hölzel; P H Wünsch; A Lebeau
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.011

5.  Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK.

Authors:  I O Ellis; D Coleman; C Wells; S Kodikara; E M Paish; S Moss; S Al-Sam; N Anderson; L Bobrow; I Buley; C E Connolly; N S Dallimore; S Hales; A Hanby; S Humphreys; F Knox; J Lowe; J Macartney; R Nash; D Parham; J Patnick; S E Pinder; C M Quinn; A J Robertson; J Shrimankar; R A Walker; R Winder
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening.

Authors:  J A M Gray; J Patnick; R G Blanks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-03-01

7.  [Results of reference pathology in mammography screening].

Authors:  H H Kreipe; H Höfler; A Lebeau; H Pickartz; D Schmidt
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.011

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ and its implications for surgical practice.

Authors:  M F Dillon; C M Quinn; E W McDermott; A O'Doherty; N O'Higgins; A D K Hill
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 9.  Molecular genetics of solid tumours: translating research into clinical practice. What we could do now: breast cancer.

Authors:  S R Lakhani
Journal:  Mol Pathol       Date:  2001-10

10.  Radiological and pathological size estimations of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, specimen handling and the influence on the success of breast conservation surgery: a review of 2564 cases from the Sloane Project.

Authors:  J Thomas; A Evans; J Macartney; S E Pinder; A Hanby; I Ellis; O Kearins; T Roberts; K Clements; G Lawrence; H Bishop
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-01-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.