Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of core biopsies of papillary breast lesions is reduced by the use of immunohistochemistry for CK5/6, calponin and p63

Histopathology

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 202-208

  Douglas Jones, Anthony ^a   Shah, V ^b   Morgan, J ^a   Dallimore, N ^c   Rashid, M ^d  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b SINGLETON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c LLANDOUGH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d ROYAL GWENT HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast pathology; Calponin; CK5 6; Immunohistochemistry; Interobserver agreement; p63; Papillary lesions

Indexed keywords

CALPONIN; CYTOKERATIN; PROTEIN P53;

ARTICLE; ASPIRATION CYTOLOGY; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCIUM-BINDING PROTEINS; CARCINOMA, PAPILLARY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DNA-BINDING PROTEINS; GENES, TUMOR SUPPRESSOR; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KERATIN-5; KERATINS; MICROFILAMENT PROTEINS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOSPHOPROTEINS; TRANS-ACTIVATORS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEINS;

EID: 23444448786     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02208.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. NHSBSP. Guidelines for cytology procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. NHSBSP Publication Number 22. Sheffield: NHS Breast Screening Programme Publications 1993.
2. Non operative diagnosis subgroup of the National Coordinating Committee for Breast Screening Pathology. Guidelines for non operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. NHSBSP Publication Number 50. Sheffield: NHS Breast Screening Programme Publications 2001; (http://www.cancer screening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp.50.pdf)
3. Ellis IO, Humphreys S, Michell M, Pinder S, Wells C, Zakhour HD. Guidelines for breast needle core biopsy handling and reporting in breast screening assessment. J. Clin. Pathol. 2004; 57; 897-902.
4. Ivan D, Selinko V, Sahin AA, Sneige N, Middleton LP. Accuracy of core needle biopsy in assessing papillary breast lesions: histologic predictors of malignancy. Mod. Pathol. 2004; 17; 165-171.
5. Carder PJ, Garvican J, Haigh I, Liston JC. Needle core biopsy can reliably distinguish between benign and malignant papillary lesions of the breast. Histopathol. 2005; 46; 320-327.
6. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33; 159-174.
7. Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. In Fleiss JL eds. Statistical methods for proportions and rates. New York: John Wiley 1981; 221-236.
8. Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, Carter D, Lee CH. Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance. Radiology 2000; 216; 831-837.
9. Ibrakim AEK, Bateman AC, Theaker JM et al. The role and histological classification of needle core biopsy in comparison with fine needle aspiration cytology in the pre-operative assessment of impalpable breast lesions. J. Clin. Pathol. 2001; 54; 121-125.
10. Shannon J, Douglas-Jones AG, Dallimore NS. Conversion to core biopsy in preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions: is it justified by results? J. Clin. Pathol. 2001; 54; 762-765.
11. Collins L, Connolly JL, Page DL et al. Diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2004; 28; 126-131.
12. Raju U, Vertes D. Breast papillomas with atypical ductal hyperplasia: a clinicopathologic study. Hum. Pathol. 1996; 27; 1231-1238.
13. Page DL, Salhany KE, Jensen RA, Dupont WD. Subsequent breast carcinoma risk after biopsy with atypia in a breast papilloma. Cancer 1996; 78; 258-266.
14. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1991; 15; 209-221.
15. Elston CW, Sloane JP, Amendoeira I et al. Causes of inconsistency in diagnosing and classifying intraductal proliferations of the breast: European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. Eur. J. Cancer 2000; 36; 1769-1772.
16. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardised criteria. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1992; 16; 1133-1143.
17. Boeker W, Moll R, Dervan O et al. Usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast is a committed stem (progenitor) cell lesion distinct from atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. J. Pathol. 2002; 198; 458-467.
18. Otterbach F, Bankfalvi A, Bergner S, Decker T, Krech R, Boeker W. Cytokeratin 5/6 immunohistochemistry assists the differential diagnosis of atypical proliferations of the breast. Histopathology 2000; 37; 232-240.
19. Lerwill MF. Current practical applications of diagnostic immunohistochemistry in breast pathology. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2004; 28; 1076-1091.
20. Hoda SA, Rosen PP. Practical considerations in the pathologic diagnosis of needle core biopsies of breast. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2002; 118; 101-108.
21. Jacobs TW, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies. To excise or not to excise? Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2002; 26; 1095-1110.
22. Ohuchi N, Rildya A, Kasai M. Possible cancerous changes of intraductal papillomas of the breast. Cancer 1984; 54; 605-611.
23. Ali-Fehmi R, Carolin K, Wallis T et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of breast lesions associated with multiple papillomas. Hum. Pathol. 2003; 34; 234-239.
24. Bethwaite P, Smith N, Delahunt B et al. Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J. Clin. Pathol. 1998; 51; 450-454.
25. Sloane JP, Amendoreia I, Apostolikas N et al. Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorising ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. Hum. Pathol. 1998; 29; 1056-1062.
26. Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM, Appleton MAC et al. Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. J. Clin. Pathol. 2000; 53; 596-602.
27. Sneige N, Lagios MD, Schwarting R, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum. Pathol. 1999; 30; 257-262.
28. Frierson HF, Wolber RA, Berean KW et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histological grading system for infiltrating duct carcinoma. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1995; 103; 195-198.
29. Robbins P, Pinder S, De Klerk N et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum. Pathol. 1995; 26; 873-879.
30. Sloane JP, Ellman R., Anderson TJ et al. Consistency of histopathological reporting of breast lesions detected by screening: findings of the UK national external quality assessment scheme (EQA). Eur. J. Cancer 1994; 30; 1414-1419.
31. Lessells AM, Burnett RA, Howarson SR et al. Observer variability in the histopathological reporting of needle biopsy specimens of the prostate. Hum. Pathol. 1997; 28; 646-649.