ArticleHistopathology2025
Decision-making in breast pathology reporting: the effect of clinical relevant thresholds.
Article in Histopathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsIn breast cancer (BC) pathology reports, small differences around cut-off values can impact staging and consequently, clinical decision-making. Several pathology variables are not very exact, leaving room for interpretation by the pathologist. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate pathologists' decision-making around clinically relevant cut-off values.
methodsWe performed a retrospective, population-based analysis of primary invasive BC specimens using real-world data from the Dutch National Pathology Registry. Data collection included tumour diameter and oestrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PgR) status from patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2022.
resultsOverall, 64,099 BCs were analysed for tumour diameter. For larger tumours (>2 cm), rounding was observed to the nearest half or whole centimetre. For smaller tumours, rounding occurred only to half centimetres, while there was an avoidance of the 1.0 and 2.0 cm thresholds. For ER/PgR assessment, 74,502 BCs were analysed. In cases with low ER expression, rounding was observed at multiples of 5%. However, around the clinically relevant cut-off value of 10% in the Netherlands, pathologists tend to semiquantify the percentage of ER and/or PgR expression by also using 9% and 11%, with a trend to classify a case as just positive (10% or 11%).
conclusionPathologists take clinical cut-off values into account in their decision-making process. For tumour size, they tend to avoid the 1.0 and 2.0 cm thresholds. For ER/PgR, they tend to categorize the tumour as positive around the threshold. Further research is needed to determine the implication of this for treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.