AIMS: To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. METHODS AND RESULTS: In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.
AIMS: To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. METHODS AND RESULTS: In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.
Authors: C W Elston; J P Sloane; I Amendoeira; N Apostolikas; J P Bellocq; S Bianchi; W Boecker; G Bussolati; D Coleman; C E Connolly; P Dervan; M Drijkoningen; V Eusebi; D Faverly; R Holland; J Jacquemier; M Lacerda; J Martinez-Penuela; C de Miguel; S Mossi; C Munt; J L Peterse; F Rank; A Reiner; M Sylvan; C A Wells; B Zafrani Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Laura C Collins; James L Connolly; David L Page; Robert A Goulart; Etta D Pisano; Laurie L Fajardo; Wendie A Berg; Daryl J Caudry; Barbara J McNeil; Stuart J Schnitt Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: S Bianchi; D Palli; M Galli; B Arisio; A Cappa; S Dal Forno; G Coggi; S Fiaccavento; E Gagliano; E Magni Journal: Pathol Res Pract Date: 1994-01 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Rohit K Jain; Rutika Mehta; Rosen Dimitrov; Lisbeth G Larsson; Paul M Musto; Kurt B Hodges; Thomas M Ulbright; Eyas M Hattab; Narasimhan Agaram; Muhammad T Idrees; Sunil Badve Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Kimberly H Allison; Susan D Reed; Lynda F Voigt; Carolyn D Jordan; Kathryn M Newton; Rochelle L Garcia Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: J P Sloane; R Ellman; T J Anderson; C L Brown; J Coyne; N S Dallimore; J D Davies; D Eakins; I O Ellis; C W Elston Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Kimberly H Allison; Mara H Rendi; Sue Peacock; Tom Morgan; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver Journal: Histopathology Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Laura S Samples; Mara H Rendi; Paul D Frederick; Kimberly H Allison; Heidi D Nelson; Thomas R Morgan; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: Breast Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Brandon D Gallas; Marios A Gavrielides; Catherine M Conway; Adam Ivansky; Tyler C Keay; Wei-Chung Cheng; Jason Hipp; Stephen M Hewitt Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2014-11-12
Authors: Ezgi Mercan; Selim Aksoy; Linda G Shapiro; Donald L Weaver; Tad T Brunyé; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tracy Onega; Donald L Weaver; Paul D Frederick; Kimberly H Allison; Anna N A Tosteson; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Gary M Longton; Heidi D Nelson; Natalia V Oster; Margaret S Pepe; Joann G Elmore Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-05-20 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Gary M Longton; Anna N A Tosteson; Berta Geller; Tracy Onega; Patricia A Carney; Sara L Jackson; Kimberly H Allison; Donald L Weaver Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paul D Frederick; Heidi D Nelson; Patricia A Carney; Tad T Brunyé; Kimberly H Allison; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 2.583