Variability in Pathologists' Interpretations of Individual Breast Biopsy Slides: A Population Perspective

被引:50
|
作者
Elmore, Joann G. [3 ]
Nelson, Heidi D. [1 ]
Pepe, Margaret S. [4 ]
Longton, Gary M. [4 ]
Tosteson, Anna N. A. [2 ]
Geller, Berta [5 ]
Onega, Tracy [6 ]
Carney, Patricia A. [1 ]
Jackson, Sara L. [3 ]
Allison, Kimberly H. [7 ]
Weaver, Donald L. [8 ]
机构
[1] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Pk Rd, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, One Med Ctr Dr HB7505, Lebanon, NH 03756 USA
[3] Univ Washington, Mailbox 359780,325 Ninth Ave, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
[4] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Program Biostat & Biomath, M2-B500,1100 Fairview Ave North,Box 19024, Seattle, WA 98109 USA
[5] Univ Vermont, Family Med, 1 South Prospect St, Burlington, VT 05401 USA
[6] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Sect Biostat & Epidemiol, One Med Ctr Dr HB7937, Lebanon, NH 03756 USA
[7] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Pathol, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 93195 USA
[8] Univ Vermont, Dept Pathol, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
LESIONS; CANCER;
D O I
10.7326/M15-0964
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The effect of physician diagnostic variability on accuracy at a population level depends on the prevalence of diagnoses. Objective: To estimate how diagnostic variability affects accuracy from the perspective of a U.S. woman aged 50 to 59 years having a breast biopsy. Design: Applied probability using Bayes theorem. Setting: B-Path (Breast Pathology) Study comparing pathologists' interpretations of a single biopsy slide versus a reference consensus interpretation from 3 experts. Participants: 115 practicing pathologists (6900 total interpretations from 240 distinct cases). Measurements: A single representative slide from each of the 240 cases was used to estimate the proportion of biopsies with a diagnosis that would be verified if the same slide were interpreted by a reference group of 3 expert pathologists. Probabilities of confirmation (predictive values) were estimated using B-Path Study results and prevalence of biopsy diagnoses for women aged 50 to 59 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Results: Overall, if 1 representative slide were used per case, 92.3% (95% CI, 91.4% to 93.1%) of breast biopsy diagnoses would be verified by reference consensus diagnoses, with 4.6% (CI, 3.9% to 5.3%) overinterpreted and 3.2% (CI, 2.7% to 3.6%) underinterpreted. Verification of invasive breast cancer and benign without atypia diagnoses is highly probable; estimated predictive values were 97.7% (CI, 96.5% to 98.7%) and 97.1% (CI, 96.7% to 97.4%), respectively. Verification is less probable for atypia (53.6% overinterpreted and 8.6% underinterpreted) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (18.5% overinterpreted and 11.8% underinterpreted). Limitations: Estimates are based on a testing situation with 1 slide used per case and without access to second opinions. Population-adjusted estimates may differ for women from other age groups, unscreened women, or women in different practice settings. Conclusion: This analysis, based on interpretation of a single breast biopsy slide per case, predicts a low likelihood that a diagnosis of atypia or DCIS would be verified by a reference consensus diagnosis. This diagnostic gray zone should be considered in clinical management decisions in patients with these diagnoses.
引用
收藏
页码:649 / +
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Discordant Interpretations of Breast Biopsy Specimens by Pathologists
    Leonard, George
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 314 (01): : 82 - 83
  • [2] Discordant Interpretations of Breast Biopsy Specimens by Pathologists Reply
    Elmore, Joann G.
    Pepe, Margaret S.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 314 (01): : 83 - 84
  • [3] Oral biopsy: Oral pathologists perspective
    Kumaraswamy, K. L.
    Vidhya, M.
    Rao, Prasanna Kumar
    Mukunda, Archana
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2012, 8 (02) : 192 - 198
  • [4] Digitized Whole Slides for Breast Pathology Interpretation: Pathologists Use and Perceptions
    Onega, T.
    Allison, K. H.
    Ostler, N.
    Elmore, J.
    Weaver, D. L.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2013, 93 : 381A - 381A
  • [5] Histological Grading of Breast Carcinoma: Variability between Breast Subspecialty Pathologists and General Pathologists
    Woolf, K.
    Wang, J.
    Wang, X.
    Schiffhauer, L. M.
    Hicks, D. G.
    Tang, P.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2010, 90 : 79A - 79A
  • [6] Histological Grading of Breast Carcinoma: Variability between Breast Subspecialty Pathologists and General Pathologists
    Woolf, K.
    Wang, J.
    Wang, X.
    Schiffhauer, L. M.
    Hicks, D. G.
    Tang, P.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2010, 23 : 79A - 79A
  • [7] Digitized Whole Slides for Breast Pathology Interpretation: Pathologists Use and Perceptions
    Onega, T.
    Allison, K. H.
    Ostler, N.
    Elmore, J.
    Weaver, D. L.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2013, 26 : 381A - 381A
  • [8] Calcification in breast lesions: pathologists' perspective
    Tse, G. M.
    Tan, P-H
    Pang, A. L. M.
    Tang, A. P. Y.
    Cheung, H. S.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2008, 61 (02) : 145 - 151
  • [9] Inflammatory breast cancer: The pathologists' perspective
    Cserni, G.
    Charafe-Jauffret, E.
    van Diest, P. J.
    EJSO, 2018, 44 (08): : 1128 - 1134
  • [10] Visually lossless compression of breast biopsy virtual slides for telepathology
    Johnson, Jeffrey P.
    Krupinski, Elizabeth A.
    Nafziger, John S.
    Yan, Michelle
    Roehrig, Hans
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2009: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2009, 7263