ArticleHistopathology2026
Borderline breast lesions and the limits of classification: insights from the UK National Breast Screening EQA scheme.
Article in Histopathology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious concordance studies in breast pathology have demonstrated high levels of diagnostic agreement. This study aimed to characterize breast lesions associated with the lowest levels of concordance within the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme external quality assessment (EQA) scheme.
methodsA total of 263 consecutive breast cases circulated between 2015 and 2025 were reviewed. Each case was assessed by up to 22 coordinators (expert reference panel assessors) and an average of 678 participants (all other pathologists enrolled in the EQA scheme). Cases with <80% concordance among coordinators were analysed in detail.
resultsOverall performance was high, with 67.4% of participants achieving 100% concordance across all circulated cases. Fifteen cases (5.7%) failed to meet the ≥80% concordance threshold. Mean diagnostic agreement in these cases was 57% (range 25%-79% among coordinators; 25%-87% among participants). Discordant cases predominantly involved atypical epithelial proliferations and papillary lesions, particularly those situated at diagnostic thresholds between established categories. Persistent challenges included distinguishing among lobular neoplasia subtypes, apocrine atypia, flat epithelial atypia, and related lesions, as well as between in situ and invasive papillary carcinoma.
conclusionsWhile overall concordance remains high, a small subset of biologically borderline lesions continues to generate significant diagnostic variability. These findings support further refinement of diagnostic criteria and targeted educational strategies to improve reproducibility in challenging breast lesions.
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.