Literature DB >> 32276993

Variation in breast cancer grading: the effect of creating awareness through laboratory-specific and pathologist-specific feedback reports in 16 734 patients with breast cancer.

Carmen van Dooijeweert1, Paul J van Diest2, Inge O Baas3, Elsken van der Wall3, Ivette A Deckers4.   

Abstract

AIMS: Histological grade is widely used to guide the management of invasive breast cancer (IBC). Yet, substantial interlaboratory and intralaboratory grading variations exist in daily pathology practice. To create awareness and to facilitate quality improvement, feedback reports, containing case-mix-adjusted laboratory-specific grades benchmarked against other laboratories, were sent to the individual laboratories by 1 March 2018. We studied the effect of these feedback reports on interlaboratory grading variation up till 1 year later.
METHODS: Overall, 17 102 synoptic pathology reports of IBC resection specimens from 33 laboratories, obtained between 1 March 2017 and 1 March 2019 were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). An overall deviation score (ODS), representing the sum of deviations from the grade-specific overall proportions, was calculated to compare the absolute deviation for all grades at once. Case-mix correction was performed by two multivariable logistic regression analyses, providing laboratory-specific ORs for high-grade versus low-grade IBC.
RESULTS: After feedback, the overall range between laboratories decreased by 3.8%, 6.4% and 6.6% for grades I, II and III, respectively. Though the mean ODS remained similar (13.8% vs 13.7%), the maximum ODS decreased from 34.1% to 29.4%. The range of laboratory-specific ORs decreased by 21.9% for grade III versus grades I-II.
CONCLUSIONS: An encouraging decrease in grading variation of IBC was observed after laboratory-specific feedback. Nevertheless, the overall grading variation remains substantial. In view of the important role of grading in patient management, it is adamant that not only feedback should be provided on a regular basis but also other interventions, such as additional training, are required. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; breast pathology; epidemiology; histopathology; oncology

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32276993     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206362

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  4 in total

1.  Modified radical mastectomy for anterior thoracic nerve and intercostobrachial nerve protection (case report).

Authors:  Shengchao Huang; Pu Qiu; Weizhang Chen; Yuanqi Zhang; Kangwei Luo; Jianwen Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-04

2.  The increasing importance of histologic grading in tailoring adjuvant systemic therapy in 30,843 breast cancer patients.

Authors:  C van Dooijeweert; I O Baas; I A G Deckers; S Siesling; P J van Diest; E van der Wall
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Variability in grading of ductal carcinoma in situ among an international group of pathologists.

Authors:  Esther H Lips; Jelle Wesseling; Maartje van Seijen; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Sarah E Pinder; Allison Hall; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Jeremy Sj Thomas; Laura C Collins; Jonathan Bijron; Joost Bart; Danielle Cohen; Wen Ng; Ihssane Bouybayoune; Hilary Stobart; Jan Hudecek; Michael Schaapveld; Alastair Thompson
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2021-02-23

4.  Assessment of Digital Pathology Imaging Biomarkers Associated with Breast Cancer Histologic Grade.

Authors:  Andrew Lagree; Audrey Shiner; Marie Angeli Alera; Lauren Fleshner; Ethan Law; Brianna Law; Fang-I Lu; David Dodington; Sonal Gandhi; Elzbieta A Slodkowska; Alex Shenfield; Katarzyna J Jerzak; Ali Sadeghi-Naini; William T Tran
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 3.677

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.