BACKGROUND: The effect of physician diagnostic variability on accuracy at a population level depends on the prevalence of diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how diagnostic variability affects accuracy from the perspective of a U.S. woman aged 50 to 59 years having a breast biopsy. DESIGN: Applied probability using Bayes' theorem. SETTING: B-Path (Breast Pathology) Study comparing pathologists' interpretations of a single biopsy slide versus a reference consensus interpretation from 3 experts. PARTICIPANTS: 115 practicing pathologists (6900 total interpretations from 240 distinct cases). MEASUREMENTS: A single representative slide from each of the 240 cases was used to estimate the proportion of biopsies with a diagnosis that would be verified if the same slide were interpreted by a reference group of 3 expert pathologists. Probabilities of confirmation (predictive values) were estimated using B-Path Study results and prevalence of biopsy diagnoses for women aged 50 to 59 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. RESULTS: Overall, if 1 representative slide were used per case, 92.3% (95% CI, 91.4% to 93.1%) of breast biopsy diagnoses would be verified by reference consensus diagnoses, with 4.6% (CI, 3.9% to 5.3%) overinterpreted and 3.2% (CI, 2.7% to 3.6%) underinterpreted. Verification of invasive breast cancer and benign without atypia diagnoses is highly probable; estimated predictive values were 97.7% (CI, 96.5% to 98.7%) and 97.1% (CI, 96.7% to 97.4%), respectively. Verification is less probable for atypia (53.6% overinterpreted and 8.6% underinterpreted) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (18.5% overinterpreted and 11.8% underinterpreted). LIMITATIONS: Estimates are based on a testing situation with 1 slide used per case and without access to second opinions. Population-adjusted estimates may differ for women from other age groups, unscreened women, or women in different practice settings. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on interpretation of a single breast biopsy slide per case, predicts a low likelihood that a diagnosis of atypia or DCIS would be verified by a reference consensus diagnosis. This diagnostic grey zone should be considered in clinical management decisions in patients with these diagnoses. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND: The effect of physician diagnostic variability on accuracy at a population level depends on the prevalence of diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how diagnostic variability affects accuracy from the perspective of a U.S. woman aged 50 to 59 years having a breast biopsy. DESIGN: Applied probability using Bayes' theorem. SETTING: B-Path (Breast Pathology) Study comparing pathologists' interpretations of a single biopsy slide versus a reference consensus interpretation from 3 experts. PARTICIPANTS: 115 practicing pathologists (6900 total interpretations from 240 distinct cases). MEASUREMENTS: A single representative slide from each of the 240 cases was used to estimate the proportion of biopsies with a diagnosis that would be verified if the same slide were interpreted by a reference group of 3 expert pathologists. Probabilities of confirmation (predictive values) were estimated using B-Path Study results and prevalence of biopsy diagnoses for women aged 50 to 59 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. RESULTS: Overall, if 1 representative slide were used per case, 92.3% (95% CI, 91.4% to 93.1%) of breast biopsy diagnoses would be verified by reference consensus diagnoses, with 4.6% (CI, 3.9% to 5.3%) overinterpreted and 3.2% (CI, 2.7% to 3.6%) underinterpreted. Verification of invasive breast cancer and benign without atypia diagnoses is highly probable; estimated predictive values were 97.7% (CI, 96.5% to 98.7%) and 97.1% (CI, 96.7% to 97.4%), respectively. Verification is less probable for atypia (53.6% overinterpreted and 8.6% underinterpreted) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (18.5% overinterpreted and 11.8% underinterpreted). LIMITATIONS: Estimates are based on a testing situation with 1 slide used per case and without access to second opinions. Population-adjusted estimates may differ for women from other age groups, unscreened women, or women in different practice settings. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on interpretation of a single breast biopsy slide per case, predicts a low likelihood that a diagnosis of atypia or DCIS would be verified by a reference consensus diagnosis. This diagnostic grey zone should be considered in clinical management decisions in patients with these diagnoses. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
Authors: S J Schnitt; J L Connolly; F A Tavassoli; R E Fechner; R L Kempson; R Gelman; D L Page Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 6.394
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: Kimberly H Allison; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Donald L Weaver; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore Journal: Histopathology Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Natalia V Oster; Patricia A Carney; Kimberly H Allison; Donald L Weaver; Lisa M Reisch; Gary Longton; Tracy Onega; Margaret Pepe; Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Tyler R Ross; Aanna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 2.809
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: Anna N A Tosteson; Qian Yang; Heidi D Nelson; Gary Longton; Samir S Soneji; Margaret Pepe; Berta Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Donald L Weaver; Paul D Frederick; Kimberly H Allison; Tracy Onega; Patricia A Carney; Anna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Paul D Frederick; Lisa M Reisch; Linda Titus; Stevan R Knezevich; Martin A Weinstock; Michael W Piepkorn; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Xiaohan Tang; Irina Kusmartseva; Shweta Kulkarni; Amanda Posgai; Stephan Speier; Desmond A Schatz; Michael J Haller; Martha Campbell-Thompson; Clive H Wasserfall; Bart O Roep; John S Kaddis; Mark A Atkinson Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Keegan K Hovis; Janie M Lee; Daniel S Hippe; Hannah Linden; Meghan R Flanagan; Mark R Kilgore; Janis Yee; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar Journal: J Breast Imaging Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Anna Na Tosteson; Margaret S Pepe; Gary M Longton; Heidi D Nelson; Berta Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Sara L Jackson; Donald L Weaver Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-06-22