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. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. sljack@uw.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Program in Biostatistics and Biomathematics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA. 4. Providence Cancer Center, Providence Health and Services Oregon, Portland, USA. 5. Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. 6. Department of Pathology and University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 7. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA. 8. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA. 9. Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA. 10. Department of Community and Family Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, USA. 11. Department of Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, USA.
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.
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.
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: 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: 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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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