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 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
    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.
    [J]. HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) : 240 - 251
  • [3] Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence
    Bleyer, Archie
    Welch, H. Gilbert
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 367 (21) : 1998 - 2005
  • [4] Discordant Interpretations of Breast Biopsy Specimens by Pathologists Reply
    Elmore, Joann G.
    Pepe, Margaret S.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    [J]. 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
    Esserman, Laura
    Shieh, Yiwey
    Thompson, Ian
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2009, 302 (15): : 1685 - 1692
  • [7] Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer An Opportunity for Improvement
    Esserman, Laura J.
    Thompson, Ian M., Jr.
    Reid, Brian
    [J]. 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?
    Hall, Ferris M.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2010, 254 (03) : 655 - 659
  • [10] Atypical Hyperplasia of the Breast - Risk Assessment and Management Options
    Hartmann, Lynn C.
    Degnim, Amy C.
    Santen, Richard J.
    Dupont, William D.
    Ghosh, Karthik
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2015, 372 (01) : 78 - 89