Hollis Viray1, Kevin Li, Thomas A Long, Patricia Vasalos, Julia A Bridge, Lawrence J Jennings, Kevin C Halling, Meera Hameed, David L Rimm. 1. From the Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (Dr Viray, Mr Li, Dr Rimm); the Biostatistics (Mr Long) and Surveys (Ms Vasalos) Departments, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois; the Department of Pathology & Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha (Dr Bridge); the Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (Dr Jennings); the Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Dr Halling); and the Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York (Dr Hameed).
Abstract
CONTEXT: The fraction of malignant cells in tumor tissue submitted for tests of genetic alterations is a critical variable in testing accuracy. That fraction is currently determined by pathologist visual estimation of the percentage of malignant cells. Inaccuracy could lead to a false-negative test result. OBJECTIVE: To describe a prospective, multi-institutional study to determine pathologist estimation accuracy. DESIGN: Ten ×20 magnification images of hematoxylin-eosin-stained colon tissue specimens were sent as an educational component of the College of American Pathologists KRAS-B 2011 Survey. Data from 194 labs were analyzed and compared to a criterion standard with comprehensive manual nuclear counts. RESULTS: Survey responses indicated low interlaboratory precision of pathologist estimation, but mean estimates were fairly accurate. A total of 5 of the 10 cases assessed showed more than 10% of respondents overestimating in a manner that could lead to false-negative test results. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of estimation errors resulting in molecular testing failures with implications for patient care is unknown, but the current study suggests false-negative test results may occur.
CONTEXT: The fraction of malignant cells in tumor tissue submitted for tests of genetic alterations is a critical variable in testing accuracy. That fraction is currently determined by pathologist visual estimation of the percentage of malignant cells. Inaccuracy could lead to a false-negative test result. OBJECTIVE: To describe a prospective, multi-institutional study to determine pathologist estimation accuracy. DESIGN: Ten ×20 magnification images of hematoxylin-eosin-stained colon tissue specimens were sent as an educational component of the College of American Pathologists KRAS-B 2011 Survey. Data from 194 labs were analyzed and compared to a criterion standard with comprehensive manual nuclear counts. RESULTS: Survey responses indicated low interlaboratory precision of pathologist estimation, but mean estimates were fairly accurate. A total of 5 of the 10 cases assessed showed more than 10% of respondents overestimating in a manner that could lead to false-negative test results. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of estimation errors resulting in molecular testing failures with implications for patient care is unknown, but the current study suggests false-negative test results may occur.
Authors: Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri; Hui Chen; Rajesh R Singh; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Keyur P Patel; Mark J Routbort; Jawad Manekia; Bedia A Barkoh; Hui Yao; Sharjeel Sabir; Russell R Broaddus; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Gregg Staerkel; John Stewart; Rajyalakshmi Luthra Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Antonia R Sepulveda; Stanley R Hamilton; Carmen J Allegra; Wayne Grody; Allison M Cushman-Vokoun; William K Funkhouser; Scott E Kopetz; Christopher Lieu; Noralane M Lindor; Bruce D Minsky; Federico A Monzon; Daniel J Sargent; Veena M Singh; Joseph Willis; Jennifer Clark; Carol Colasacco; R Bryan Rumble; Robyn Temple-Smolkin; Christina B Ventura; Jan A Nowak Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Jonathan C Dudley; Grzegorz T Gurda; Li-Hui Tseng; Derek A Anderson; Guoli Chen; Janis M Taube; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Susan A Elmore; Famke Aeffner; Dinesh S Bangari; Torrie A Crabbs; Stacey Fossey; Shayne C Gad; Wanda M Haschek; Jessica S Hoane; Kyathanahalli Janardhan; Ramesh C Kovi; Gail Pearse; Lyn M Wancket; Erin M Quist Journal: Toxicol Pathol Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 1.902
Authors: Lynette M Sholl; Dara L Aisner; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Lynne D Berry; Dora Dias-Santagata; Ignacio I Wistuba; Heidi Chen; Junya Fujimoto; Kelly Kugler; Wilbur A Franklin; A John Iafrate; Marc Ladanyi; Mark G Kris; Bruce E Johnson; Paul A Bunn; John D Minna; David J Kwiatkowski Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Antonia R Sepulveda; Stanley R Hamilton; Carmen J Allegra; Wayne Grody; Allison M Cushman-Vokoun; William K Funkhouser; Scott E Kopetz; Christopher Lieu; Noralane M Lindor; Bruce D Minsky; Federico A Monzon; Daniel J Sargent; Veena M Singh; Joseph Willis; Jennifer Clark; Carol Colasacco; R Bryan Rumble; Robyn Temple-Smolkin; Christina B Ventura; Jan A Nowak Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Gang Zheng; Li-Hui Tseng; Lisa Haley; Junaid Ibrahim; Jennifer Bynum; Rena Xian; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Katherine Geiersbach; Nils Adey; Noah Welker; Danielle Elsberry; Elisabeth Malmberg; Sumie Edwards; Erinn Downs-Kelly; Mohamed Salama; Mary Bronner Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2015-12-15