Kimberly H Allison1, Mara H Rendi2, Sue Peacock3, Tom Morgan3, Joann G Elmore3, Donald L Weaver4. 1. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Pathology and University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: This study examined the case-specific characteristics associated with interobserver diagnostic agreement in atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) of the breast. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-two test set cases with a consensus diagnosis of ADH from the B-Path study were evaluated. Cases were scored for 17 histological features, which were then correlated with the participant agreement with the consensus ADH diagnosis. Participating pathologists' perceptions of case difficulty, borderline features or whether they would obtain a second opinion were also examined for associations with agreement. Of the 2070 participant interpretations of the 72 consensus ADH cases, 48% were scored by participants as difficult and 45% as borderline between two diagnoses; the presence of both of these features was significantly associated with increased agreement (P < 0.001). A second opinion would have been obtained in 80% of interpretations, and this was associated with increased agreement (P < 0.001). Diagnostic agreement ranged from 10% to 89% on a case-by-case basis. Cases with papillary lesions, cribriform architecture and obvious cytological monotony were associated with higher agreement. Lower agreement rates were associated with solid or micropapillary architecture, borderline cytological monotony, or cases without a diagnostic area that was obvious on low power. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that pathologists frequently recognize the challenge of ADH cases, with some cases being more prone to diagnostic variability. In addition, there are specific histological features associated with diagnostic agreement on ADH cases. Multiple example images from cases in this test set are provided to serve as educational illustrations of these challenges.
AIMS: This study examined the case-specific characteristics associated with interobserver diagnostic agreement in atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) of the breast. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-two test set cases with a consensus diagnosis of ADH from the B-Path study were evaluated. Cases were scored for 17 histological features, which were then correlated with the participant agreement with the consensus ADH diagnosis. Participating pathologists' perceptions of case difficulty, borderline features or whether they would obtain a second opinion were also examined for associations with agreement. Of the 2070 participant interpretations of the 72 consensus ADH cases, 48% were scored by participants as difficult and 45% as borderline between two diagnoses; the presence of both of these features was significantly associated with increased agreement (P < 0.001). A second opinion would have been obtained in 80% of interpretations, and this was associated with increased agreement (P < 0.001). Diagnostic agreement ranged from 10% to 89% on a case-by-case basis. Cases with papillary lesions, cribriform architecture and obvious cytological monotony were associated with higher agreement. Lower agreement rates were associated with solid or micropapillary architecture, borderline cytological monotony, or cases without a diagnostic area that was obvious on low power. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that pathologists frequently recognize the challenge of ADH cases, with some cases being more prone to diagnostic variability. In addition, there are specific histological features associated with diagnostic agreement on ADH cases. Multiple example images from cases in this test set are provided to serve as educational illustrations of these challenges.
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: 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: 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; 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: Heidi D Nelson; Roshanthi Weerasinghe; Maritza Martel; Carlo Bifulco; Ted Assur; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2014-07-30
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: Caner Mercan; Selim Aksoy; Ezgi Mercan; Linda G Shapiro; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Caner Mercan; Bulut Aygunes; Selim Aksoy; Ezgi Mercan; Linda G Shapiro; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 7.021
Authors: Linda Moskovszky; Barbara Berger; Achim Fleischmann; Thomas Friedrich; Birgit Helmchen; Meike Körner; Tilman T Rau; Zsuzsanna Varga Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 4.553