BACKGROUND: It is well known that there is considerable inter-observer variability in assessment of the pathological parameters that are used to select node-negative breast cancer patients for adjuvant systemic treatment. There are only limited data available as to in how many patients this leads to differences in treatment decisions. METHODS: Clinical and pathological data of 694 patients <61 years with primary unilateral T1-4N0M0 breast cancer were analysed. Grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status were first assessed locally; subsequent central re-evaluation of these parameters was carried out. Clinicopathological low or high risk was assessed using national Dutch guidelines and the Adjuvant! Online (www.adjuvantonline.com). RESULTS: The local pathological examination was discordant with central review for grade, ER and HER2 in 28% (kappa 0.56; grade 2 tumours 35% discordant), 5% (kappa 0.85) and 4% (kappa 0.81) of patients, respectively. If clinical risk were assessed based on Dutch guidelines or Adjuvant! Online, respectively, 15% (one of seven patients; kappa 0.70) or 8% (kappa 0.83) of patients would have been assigned to a different clinical risk group. CONCLUSION: Inter-observer variation in pathological examination of breast carcinomas results in significant differences in grade, ER status, HER2 status, clinicopathological risk and subsequently in adjuvant systemic treatment advice.
BACKGROUND: It is well known that there is considerable inter-observer variability in assessment of the pathological parameters that are used to select node-negative breast cancerpatients for adjuvant systemic treatment. There are only limited data available as to in how many patients this leads to differences in treatment decisions. METHODS: Clinical and pathological data of 694 patients <61 years with primary unilateral T1-4N0M0 breast cancer were analysed. Grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status were first assessed locally; subsequent central re-evaluation of these parameters was carried out. Clinicopathological low or high risk was assessed using national Dutch guidelines and the Adjuvant! Online (www.adjuvantonline.com). RESULTS: The local pathological examination was discordant with central review for grade, ER and HER2 in 28% (kappa 0.56; grade 2 tumours 35% discordant), 5% (kappa 0.85) and 4% (kappa 0.81) of patients, respectively. If clinical risk were assessed based on Dutch guidelines or Adjuvant! Online, respectively, 15% (one of seven patients; kappa 0.70) or 8% (kappa 0.83) of patients would have been assigned to a different clinical risk group. CONCLUSION: Inter-observer variation in pathological examination of breast carcinomas results in significant differences in grade, ER status, HER2 status, clinicopathological risk and subsequently in adjuvant systemic treatment advice.
Authors: Luis F R Taveira; Tahsin Kurc; Alba C M A Melo; Jun Kong; Erich Bremer; Joel H Saltz; George Teodoro Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Kristian Jensen; Rikke Krusenstjerna-Hafstrøm; Jesper Lohse; Kenneth H Petersen; Helene Derand Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Thomas E Hamilton; Douglas Barnhart; Kenneth Gow; Fernando Ferrer; Jessica Kandel; Richard Glick; Roshni Dasgupta; Arlene Naranjo; Ying He; Eric Gratias; James Geller; Elizabeth Mullen; Peter Ehrlich Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Vincent M T de Jong; Yuwei Wang; Natalie D Ter Hoeve; Mark Opdam; Nikolas Stathonikos; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Michael Hauptmann; Sten Cornelissen; Willem Vreuls; Efraim H Rosenberg; Esther A Koop; Zsuzsanna Varga; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Antien L Mooyaart; Alicia Córdoba; Emma J Groen; Joost Bart; Stefan M Willems; Vasiliki Zolota; Jelle Wesseling; Anna Sapino; Ewa Chmielik; Ales Ryska; Annegien Broeks; Adri C Voogd; Sherene Loi; Stefan Michiels; Gabe S Sonke; Elsken van der Wall; Sabine Siesling; Paul J van Diest; Marjanka K Schmidt; Marleen Kok; Gwen M H E Dackus; Roberto Salgado; Sabine C Linn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: C A Drukker; M V Nijenhuis; J M Bueno-de-Mesquita; V P Retèl; W H van Harten; H van Tinteren; J Wesseling; M K Schmidt; L J Van't Veer; G S Sonke; E J T Rutgers; M J van de Vijver; S C Linn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.872