Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27913946›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2017

Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?

Sara L Jackson, Paul D Frederick, Margaret S Pepe, Heidi D Nelson, Donald L Weaver, Kimberly H Allison, Patricia A Carney, Berta M Geller, Anna N A Tosteson, Tracy Onega and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Dynamic whole-body [EJNMMI research · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Sara L JacksonDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. sljack@uw.edu.
Paul D FrederickDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Margaret S PepeProgram in Biostatistics and Biomathematics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA.
Heidi D NelsonProvidence Cancer Center, Providence Health and Services Oregon, Portland, USA.
Donald L WeaverDepartment of Pathology and University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Kimberly H AllisonDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA.
Patricia A CarneyDepartment of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA.
Berta M GellerDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, USA.
Anna N A TostesonDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, USA.
Tracy OnegaDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, USA.
Joann G ElmoreDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Washington · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Vermont · USDartmouth College · USDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USStanford University · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
Accuracy of Breast Pathology and the Impact of Double ReadingR01CA140560 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2009 to 2013
$3.3M
Digital Pathology_Accuracy Viewing Behavior and Image CharacterizationR01CA172343 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SHAPIRO, LINDA, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
Improving Accuracy &Outcomes of Breast Cancer ScreeningK05CA104699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140560NCI NIH HHS R01 CA172343NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgeons may receive a different diagnosis when a breast biopsy is interpreted by a second pathologist. The extent to which diagnostic agreement by the same pathologist varies at two time points is unknown.

methodsPathologists from eight U.S. states independently interpreted 60 breast specimens, one glass slide per case, on two occasions separated by ≥9 months. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing interpretations between the two time points; associations between reproducibility (intraobserver agreement rates); and characteristics of pathologists and cases were determined and also compared with interobserver agreement of baseline interpretations.

resultsSixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented; 49 interpreted glass slides in both study phases, resulting in 2940 interpretations. Intraobserver agreement rates between the two phases were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88-95] for invasive breast cancer, 84% (95% CI 81-87) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 53% (95% CI 47-59) for atypia, and 84% (95% CI 81-86) for benign without atypia. When comparing all study participants' case interpretations at baseline, interobserver agreement rates were 89% (95% CI 84-92) for invasive cancer, 79% (95% CI 76-81) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 43% (95% CI 41-45) for atypia, and 77% (95% CI 74-79) for benign without atypia.

conclusionsInterpretive agreement between two time points by the same individual pathologist was low for atypia and was similar to observed rates of agreement for atypia between different pathologists. Physicians and patients should be aware of the diagnostic challenges associated with a breast biopsy diagnosis of atypia when considering treatment and surveillance decisions.

Indexed as

PathologistsAdultBiopsyBreastBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMiddle AgedObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27913946
PMCPMC5538724
OpenAlexW2558971630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.