Laura S Samples1, Mara H Rendi2, Paul D Frederick1, Kimberly H Allison3, Heidi D Nelson4, Thomas R Morgan1, Donald L Weaver5, Joann G Elmore6. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St., Box 356100, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Lane 235, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 4. Providence Cancer Center, Providence Health and Services Oregon, and Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Mail Code FM, Portland, OR 97239, USA. 5. Department of Pathology and University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Given Courtyard, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT 05405, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. Electronic address: jeadmin@u.washington.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is a relatively new diagnostic term with uncertain clinical significance for surgical management. Any implied risk of invasive breast cancer associated with FEA is contingent upon diagnostic reproducibility, yet little is known regarding its use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study interpreted one of four 60-case test sets, one slide per case, constructed from 240 breast biopsy specimens. An electronic data form with standardized diagnostic categories was used; participants were instructed to indicate all diagnoses present. We assessed participants' use of FEA as a diagnostic term within: 1) each test set; 2) 72 cases classified by reference as benign without FEA; and 3) six cases classified by reference as FEA. 115 pathologists participated, providing 6900 total independent assessments. RESULTS: Notation of FEA ranged from 0% to 35% of the cases interpreted, with most pathologists noting FEA on 4 or more test cases. At least one participant noted FEA in 34 of the 72 benign non-FEA cases. For the 6 reference FEA cases, participant agreement with the case reference FEA diagnosis ranged from 17% to 52%; diagnoses noted by participating pathologists for these FEA cases included columnar cell hyperplasia, usual ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, and atypical ductal hyperplasia. CONCLUSIONS: We observed wide variation in the diagnosis of FEA among U.S. pathologists. This suggests that perceptions of diagnostic criteria and any implied risk associated with FEA may also vary. Surgical excision following a core biopsy diagnosis of FEA should be reconsidered and studied further.
OBJECTIVES: Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is a relatively new diagnostic term with uncertain clinical significance for surgical management. Any implied risk of invasive breast cancer associated with FEA is contingent upon diagnostic reproducibility, yet little is known regarding its use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study interpreted one of four 60-case test sets, one slide per case, constructed from 240 breast biopsy specimens. An electronic data form with standardized diagnostic categories was used; participants were instructed to indicate all diagnoses present. We assessed participants' use of FEA as a diagnostic term within: 1) each test set; 2) 72 cases classified by reference as benign without FEA; and 3) six cases classified by reference as FEA. 115 pathologists participated, providing 6900 total independent assessments. RESULTS: Notation of FEA ranged from 0% to 35% of the cases interpreted, with most pathologists noting FEA on 4 or more test cases. At least one participant noted FEA in 34 of the 72 benign non-FEA cases. For the 6 reference FEA cases, participant agreement with the case reference FEA diagnosis ranged from 17% to 52%; diagnoses noted by participating pathologists for these FEA cases included columnar cell hyperplasia, usual ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, and atypical ductal hyperplasia. CONCLUSIONS: We observed wide variation in the diagnosis of FEA among U.S. pathologists. This suggests that perceptions of diagnostic criteria and any implied risk associated with FEA may also vary. Surgical excision following a core biopsy diagnosis of FEA should be reconsidered and studied further.
Authors: Melvin J Silverstein; Abram Recht; Michael D Lagios; Ira J Bleiweiss; Peter W Blumencranz; Terri Gizienski; Steven E Harms; Jay Harness; Roger J Jackman; V Suzanne Klimberg; Robert Kuske; Gary M Levine; Michael N Linver; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Hope Rugo; Kathy Schilling; Debu Tripathy; Frank A Vicini; Pat W Whitworth; Shawna C Willey Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Anoek H J Verschuur-Maes; Carolien H M van Deurzen; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Paul J van Diest Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Christoph J Rageth; Elizabeth A M O'Flynn; Katja Pinker; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Alexander Mundinger; Thomas Decker; Christoph Tausch; Florian Dammann; Pascal A Baltzer; Eva Maria Fallenberg; Maria P Foschini; Sophie Dellas; Michael Knauer; Caroline Malhaire; Martin Sonnenschein; Andreas Boos; Elisabeth Morris; Zsuzsanna Varga Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 4.872