Literature DB >> 27913946

Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?

Sara L Jackson1, Paul D Frederick2, Margaret S Pepe3, Heidi D Nelson4,5, Donald L Weaver6, Kimberly H Allison7, Patricia A Carney8, Berta M Geller9, Anna N A Tosteson10,11, Tracy Onega10, Joann G Elmore2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgeons may receive a different diagnosis when a breast biopsy is interpreted by a second pathologist. The extent to which diagnostic agreement by the same pathologist varies at two time points is unknown.
METHODS: Pathologists from eight U.S. states independently interpreted 60 breast specimens, one glass slide per case, on two occasions separated by ≥9 months. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing interpretations between the two time points; associations between reproducibility (intraobserver agreement rates); and characteristics of pathologists and cases were determined and also compared with interobserver agreement of baseline interpretations.
RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented; 49 interpreted glass slides in both study phases, resulting in 2940 interpretations. Intraobserver agreement rates between the two phases were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88-95] for invasive breast cancer, 84% (95% CI 81-87) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 53% (95% CI 47-59) for atypia, and 84% (95% CI 81-86) for benign without atypia. When comparing all study participants' case interpretations at baseline, interobserver agreement rates were 89% (95% CI 84-92) for invasive cancer, 79% (95% CI 76-81) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 43% (95% CI 41-45) for atypia, and 77% (95% CI 74-79) for benign without atypia.
CONCLUSIONS: Interpretive agreement between two time points by the same individual pathologist was low for atypia and was similar to observed rates of agreement for atypia between different pathologists. Physicians and patients should be aware of the diagnostic challenges associated with a breast biopsy diagnosis of atypia when considering treatment and surveillance decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27913946      PMCID: PMC5538724          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5695-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  20 in total

1.  The harms and benefits of modern screening mammography.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Russell P Harris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-06-17

2.  Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens.

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

3.  Atypical hyperplasia of the breast--risk assessment and management options.

Authors:  Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Richard J Santen; William D Dupont; Karthik Ghosh
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability.

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

5.  Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  David L Page; Peggy A Schuyler; William D Dupont; Roy A Jensen; W Dale Plummer; Jean F Simpson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-01-11       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Todd M Tuttle; Stephanie Jarosek; Elizabeth B Habermann; Amanda Arrington; Anasooya Abraham; Todd J Morris; Beth A Virnig
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel.

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

8.  Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies.

Authors:  Carolina Reyes; Offiong F Ikpatt; Mehrdad Nadji; Richard J Cote
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2014-02-25

9.  Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study.

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

10.  A Randomized Study Comparing Digital Imaging to Traditional Glass Slide Microscopy for Breast Biopsy and Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Margaret S Pepe; Patricia A Carney; Heidi D Nelson; Kimberly H Allison; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Ezgi Mercan; Linda G Shapiro; Tad T Brunyé; Thomas R Morgan; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2017-03-10
View more
  6 in total

1.  A Roadmap for Foundational Research on Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: From the 2018 NIH/RSNA/ACR/The Academy Workshop.

Authors:  Curtis P Langlotz; Bibb Allen; Bradley J Erickson; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keith Bigelow; Tessa S Cook; Adam E Flanders; Matthew P Lungren; David S Mendelson; Jeffrey D Rudie; Ge Wang; Krishna Kandarpa
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Quantitative Preoperative Breast MR Imaging Features Associated with Recurrence after Treatment.

Authors:  Jing Luo; Brian S Johnston; Averi E Kitsch; Daniel S Hippe; Larissa A Korde; Sara Javid; Janie M Lee; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  A Pragmatic Machine Learning Approach to Quantify Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Whole Slide Images.

Authors:  Nikita Shvetsov; Morten Grønnesby; Edvard Pedersen; Kajsa Møllersen; Lill-Tove Rasmussen Busund; Ruth Schwienbacher; Lars Ailo Bongo; Thomas Karsten Kilvaer
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 6.575

4.  Method for coregistration of optical measurements of breast tissue with histopathology: the importance of accounting for tissue deformations.

Authors:  Lisanne de Boer; Esther Kho; Jasper Nijkamp; Koen Van de Vijver; Henricus J C Sterenborg; Leon Ter Beek; Theo J Ruers
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 3.170

Review 5.  Preneoplastic Low-Risk Mammary Ductal Lesions (Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Spectrum): Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Thaer Khoury
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Code-Free Development and Deployment of Deep Segmentation Models for Digital Pathology.

Authors:  Henrik Sahlin Pettersen; Ilya Belevich; Elin Synnøve Røyset; Erik Smistad; Melanie Rae Simpson; Eija Jokitalo; Ingerid Reinertsen; Ingunn Bakke; André Pedersen
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-27
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.