Literature DB >> 30980039

Variability in diagnostic threshold for comedo necrosis among breast pathologists: implications for patient eligibility for active surveillance trials of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Beth T Harrison1, E Shelley Hwang2,3, Ann H Partridge4,5, Alastair M Thompson6, Stuart J Schnitt7,8.   

Abstract

Active surveillance trials for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are in progress in the United States and Europe. In some of these trials, the presence of comedo necrosis in the DCIS has been an exclusion criterion for trial entry. However, the minimum amount of necrosis required by pathologists for a diagnosis of comedo necrosis is not well-defined. We surveyed 35 experienced breast pathologists to assess their diagnostic threshold for comedo necrosis. Pink circles representing necrosis ranging in extent from 10 to 80% of the duct diameter were superimposed on eight replicate histologic images of a single duct involved by low nuclear grade, solid pattern DCIS. These images were circulated by e-mail to the participating pathologists who were asked to select the image that represents the minimum amount of necrosis that they require for a diagnosis of comedo necrosis. Among the 35 participants, the minimum extent of the duct diameter required for a diagnosis of comedo necrosis was 10% for 4 pathologists, 20% for 5, 30% for 11, 40% for 7, 50% for 6, 60% for 1 and 70% for 1. There was no single threshold about which more than one-third of the pathologists agreed met the minimal criteria for comedo necrosis. We conclude that even among experienced breast pathologists, the threshold for comedo necrosis is highly variable. Our findings highlight the need for a standardized definition of comedo necrosis as a trial criterion, and more generally where it may be used as a marker of increased risk of recurrence for therapeutic decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30980039     DOI: 10.1038/s41379-019-0262-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  11 in total

Review 1.  Diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in an era of de-escalation of therapy.

Authors:  Stuart J Schnitt
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 2.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of breast: update 2019.

Authors:  Sunil S Badve; Yesim Gökmen-Polar
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 5.306

Review 3.  Is loss of p53 a driver of ductal carcinoma in situ progression?

Authors:  Rhiannon L Morrissey; Alastair M Thompson; Guillermina Lozano
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Clinicopathologic Features, Treatment Patterns, and Disease Outcomes in a Modern, Prospective Cohort of Young Women Diagnosed with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Megan E Tesch; Shoshana M Rosenberg; Laura C Collins; Julia S Wong; Laura Dominici; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla Tamimi; Lidia Schapira; Virginia F Borges; Ellen Warner; Steven E Come; Ann H Partridge
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 4.339

Review 5.  Learning to distinguish progressive and non-progressive ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Anna K Casasent; Mathilde M Almekinders; Charlotta Mulder; Proteeti Bhattacharjee; Deborah Collyar; Alastair M Thompson; Jos Jonkers; Esther H Lips; Jacco van Rheenen; E Shelley Hwang; Serena Nik-Zainal; Nicholas E Navin; Jelle Wesseling
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 69.800

Review 6.  Low-risk DCIS. What is it? Observe or excise?

Authors:  Sarah E Pinder; Alastair M Thompson; Jelle Wesserling
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 4.535

7.  Genetic analysis of pleomorphic and florid lobular carcinoma in situ variants: frequent ERBB2/ERBB3 alterations and clonal relationship to classic lobular carcinoma in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma.

Authors:  Eliah R Shamir; Yunn-Yi Chen; Gregor Krings
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 7.842

8.  Multi-modal imaging of high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using C2Am: a targeted cell death imaging agent.

Authors:  Zoltan Szucs; James Joseph; Tim J Larkin; Bangwen Xie; Sarah E Bohndiek; Kevin M Brindle; André A Neves
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 9.  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

10.  Grading variation in 2,934 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the effect of laboratory- and pathologist-specific feedback reports.

Authors:  Carmen van Dooijeweert; Paul J van Diest; Inge O Baas; Elsken van der Wall; Ivette A G Deckers
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 2.644

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.