Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2017

01-05-2017 | Breast Oncology

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

Authors: Sara L. Jackson, MD, MPH, Paul D. Frederick, MPH, MBA, Margaret S. Pepe, PhD, Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, Donald L. Weaver, MD, Kimberly H. Allison, MD, Patricia A. Carney, PhD, Berta M. Geller, EdD, Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD, Tracy Onega, PhD, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

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.
Literature
2.
go back to reference U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716–26. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716–26.
3.
go back to reference Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2003;361(9352):125–9.CrossRefPubMed Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2003;361(9352):125–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast—risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:78–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast—risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:78–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Tuttle TM, Jarosek S, Habermann EB, et al. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1362–7.CrossRefPubMed Tuttle TM, Jarosek S, Habermann EB, et al. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1362–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Arrington AK, Jarosek SL, Virnig BA, Habermann EB, Tuttle TM. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2697–704.CrossRefPubMed Arrington AK, Jarosek SL, Virnig BA, Habermann EB, Tuttle TM. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2697–704.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
go back to reference Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast-lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16:1133–43.CrossRefPubMed Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast-lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16:1133–43.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Tosteson AN, Greenberg ER. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:142–5.CrossRefPubMed Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Tosteson AN, Greenberg ER. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:142–5.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Della Mea V, Puglisi F, Bonzanini M, et al. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of the breast: a preliminary report on telepathology through internet multimedia electronic mail. Mod Pathol. 1997;10:636–41.PubMed Della Mea V, Puglisi F, Bonzanini M, et al. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of the breast: a preliminary report on telepathology through internet multimedia electronic mail. Mod Pathol. 1997;10:636–41.PubMed
11.
12.
go back to reference Elmore JG, Tosteson AN, Pepe MS, et al. Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study. BMJ. 2016;353:i3069.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Elmore JG, Tosteson AN, Pepe MS, et al. Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study. BMJ. 2016;353:i3069.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
15.
go back to reference O’Malley FP, Pinder SE, Mulligan AM. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011. O’Malley FP, Pinder SE, Mulligan AM. Breast pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011.
16.
go back to reference Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Biopsy interpretation of the breast. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Biopsy interpretation of the breast. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
17.
go back to reference Jain RK, Mehta R, Dimitrov R, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:917–23.CrossRefPubMed Jain RK, Mehta R, Dimitrov R, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:917–23.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Onega T, Weaver D, Geller B, et al. Digitized whole slides for breast pathology interpretation: current practices and perceptions. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27:642–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Onega T, Weaver D, Geller B, et al. Digitized whole slides for breast pathology interpretation: current practices and perceptions. J Digit Imaging. 2014;27:642–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Allison KH, Reisch LM, Carney PA, et al. Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel. Histopathology. 2014;65:240–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Allison KH, Reisch LM, Carney PA, et al. Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel. Histopathology. 2014;65:240–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B, et al. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e234–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B, et al. Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e234–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Reyes C, Ikpatt OF, Nadji M, Cote RJ. Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies. J Pathol Inform. 2014;5:5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Reyes C, Ikpatt OF, Nadji M, Cote RJ. Intra-observer reproducibility of whole slide imaging for the primary diagnosis of breast needle biopsies. J Pathol Inform. 2014;5:5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?
Authors
Sara L. Jackson, MD, MPH
Paul D. Frederick, MPH, MBA
Margaret S. Pepe, PhD
Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH
Donald L. Weaver, MD
Kimberly H. Allison, MD
Patricia A. Carney, PhD
Berta M. Geller, EdD
Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD
Tracy Onega, PhD
Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5695-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2017 Go to the issue