Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens

JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 313, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1122-1132

  Elmore, Joann G ^a   Longton, Gary M ^b   Carney, Patricia A ^c   Geller, Berta M ^d   Onega, Tracy ^e   Tosteson, Anna N A ^e,f   Nelson, Heidi D ^c,g   Pepe, Margaret S ^b   Allison, Kimberly H ^h   Schnitt, Stuart J ^i,j   O'Malley, Frances P ^k,l   Weaver, Donald L ^m  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^c OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d University of Vermont   (United States)

^e NORRIS COTTON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^f DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^g Providence Cancer Center   (United States)

^h STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^j HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^k ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^l ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^m UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST HYPERPLASIA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSENSUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC CONCORDANCE; FEMALE; GENERAL PATHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; UNITED STATES; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST TUMOR; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; STANDARDS; TUMOR INVASION;

ADULT; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL;

EID: 84925884510     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.1405     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Silverstein M. Where's the outrage? J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(1):78-79.
2. Silverstein MJ, Recht A, Lagios MD, et al. Special report: Consensus conference III: image-detected breast cancer: state-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment [published correction appears in J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Dec;209(6):802]. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(4):504-520.
3. Weaver DL, Rosenberg RD, Barlow WE, et al. Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. Cancer. 2006;106(4): 732-742.
4. Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK. Diseases of the Breast. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2014.
5. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of 3 decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998-2005.
6. Hall FM. Identification, biopsy, and treatment of poorly understood premalignant, in situ, and indolent low-grade cancers: are we becoming victims of our own success? Radiology. 2010;254 (3):655-659.
7. O'Malley FP, Pinder SE, Mulligan AM. Breast pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011.
8. Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Biopsy interpretation of the breast. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
9. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15(3):209-221.
10. 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(12): 1133-1143.
11. Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Tosteson AN, Greenberg ER. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(2):142-145.
12. 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(6):636-641.
13. Oster NV, Carney PA, Allison KH, et al. Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast pathology: practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS). BMC Womens Health. 2013;13(1):3.
14. Feng S, Weaver DL, Carney PA, et al. A framework for evaluating diagnostic discordance in pathology discovered during research studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(7):955-961.
15. 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 (2):240-251.
16. National Cancer Institute. Breast cancer surveillance consortium. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/. Accessed June 1, 2011.
17. Ginsburg OM, Martin LJ, Boyd NF. Mammographic density, lobular involution, and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(9):1369-1374.
18. Helmer O. The systematic use of expert judgment in operations research. http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P2795.html. Accessed March 27, 2012.
19. Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool For Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications; 2005.
20. American Medical Association. Physicians. http://www.dmddata.com/data-lists-physicians.asp. Accessed January 27, 2015.
21. Rubin E, Visscher DW, Alexander RW, Urist MM, Maddox WA. Proliferative disease and atypia in biopsies performed for nonpalpable lesions detected mammographically. Cancer. 1988;61(10): 2077-2082.
22. Zahl PH, Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Overestimated lead times in cancer screening has led to substantial underestimation of overdiagnosis. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(7):2014-2019.
23. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6(6):CD001877.
24. Collins LC, Connolly JL, Page DL, et al. Diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies: results from a randomized clinical trial. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(1):126-131.
25. Haas JS, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, Burstin HR, Brennan TA. Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(5):321-328.
26. Saul S. Prone to error: earliest steps to find cancer. New York Times. July 19, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20cancer.html ?pagewanted=all&-r=0. Accessed February 16, 2015.
27. Rakovitch E, Mihai A, Pignol JP, et al. Is expert breast pathology assessment necessary for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;87(3):265-272.
28. Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(3):146-151.
29. Dupont WD, Parl FF, Hartmann WH, et al. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer. 1993;71(4):1258-1265.
30. London SJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Colditz GA. A prospective study of benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 1992;267(7):941-944.
31. 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(1):78-89.
32. Feinstein AR. A bibliography of publications on observer variability. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(8):619-632.
33. Elmore JG, Feinstein AR. A bibliography of publications on observer variability (final installment). J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):567-580.
34. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(22):1493-1499.
35. Lee CI, Bassett LW, Lehman CD. Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research. Radiology. 2012;264(3):632-636.
36. Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Wells WA, Swartz WG. Can we improve breast pathology reporting practices? a community-based breast pathology quality improvement program in New Hampshire. J Community Health. 1998;23(2):85-98.
37. Trocchi P, Ursin G, Kuss O, et al. Mammographic density and inter-observer variability of pathologic evaluation of core biopsies among women with mammographic abnormalities. BMC Cancer. 2012; 12:554.
38. Shaw EC, Hanby AM, Wheeler K, et al. Observer agreement comparing the use of virtual slides with glass slides in the pathology review component of the POSH breast cancer cohort study. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(5):403-408.
39. Stang A, Trocchi P, Ruschke K, et al. Factors influencing the agreement on histopathological assessments of breast biopsies among pathologists. Histopathology. 2011;59(5):939-949.