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

被引:51
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 18 条
[1]  
Abraham J., 2015, US NEWS WORLD REPORT
[2]   Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel [J].
Allison, Kimberly H. ;
Reisch, Lisa M. ;
Carney, Patricia A. ;
Weaver, Donald L. ;
Schnitt, Stuart J. ;
O'Malley, Frances P. ;
Geller, Berta M. ;
Elmore, Joann G. .
HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) :240-251
[3]   Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence [J].
Bleyer, Archie ;
Welch, H. Gilbert .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 367 (21) :1998-2005
[4]   Discordant Interpretations of Breast Biopsy Specimens by Pathologists Reply [J].
Elmore, Joann G. ;
Pepe, Margaret S. ;
Weaver, Donald L. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 314 (01) :83-84
[5]  
Elmore JG, 2015, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V313, P1122, DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.1405
[6]   Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer [J].
Esserman, Laura ;
Shieh, Yiwey ;
Thompson, Ian .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2009, 302 (15) :1685-1692
[7]   Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer An Opportunity for Improvement [J].
Esserman, Laura J. ;
Thompson, Ian M., Jr. ;
Reid, Brian .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 310 (08) :797-798
[8]  
Fisher L.D., 1993, BIOSTATISTICS METHOD
[9]   Identification, Biopsy, and Treatment of Poorly Understood Premalignant, in Situ, and Indolent Low-Grade Cancers: Are We Becoming Victims of Our Own Success? [J].
Hall, Ferris M. .
RADIOLOGY, 2010, 254 (03) :655-659
[10]   Atypical Hyperplasia of the Breast - Risk Assessment and Management Options [J].
Hartmann, Lynn C. ;
Degnim, Amy C. ;
Santen, Richard J. ;
Dupont, William D. ;
Ghosh, Karthik .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2015, 372 (01) :78-89