Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: Simulation study

Joann G. Elmore, Anna N A Tosteson, Margaret S. Pepe, Gary M. Longton, Heidi Nelson, Berta Geller, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Tracy Onega, Kimberly H. Allison, Sara L. Jackson, Donald L. Weaver

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the potential effect of second opinions on improving the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of breast histopathology. Design Simulation study. Setting 12 different strategies for acquiring independent second opinions. Participants Interpretations of 240 breast biopsy specimens by 115 pathologists, one slide for each case, compared with reference diagnoses derived by expert consensus. Main outcome measures Misclassification rates for individual pathologists and for 12 simulated strategies for second opinions. Simulations compared accuracy of diagnoses from single pathologists with that of diagnoses based on pairing interpretations from first and second independent pathologists, where resolution of disagreements was by an independent third pathologist. 12 strategies were evaluated in which acquisition of second opinions depended on initial diagnoses, assessment of case difficulty or borderline characteristics, pathologists' clinical volumes, or whether a second opinion was required by policy or desired by the pathologists. The 240 cases included benign without atypia (10% non-proliferative, 20% proliferative without atypia), atypia (30%), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 30%), and invasive cancer (10%). Overall misclassification rates and agreement statistics depended on the composition of the test set, which included a higher prevalence of difficult cases than in typical practice. Results Misclassification rates significantly decreased (P

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberi3069
JournalBMJ (Online)
Volume353
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Breast
Referral and Consultation
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Pathologists
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Biopsy
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology : Simulation study. / Elmore, Joann G.; Tosteson, Anna N A; Pepe, Margaret S.; Longton, Gary M.; Nelson, Heidi; Geller, Berta; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Onega, Tracy; Allison, Kimberly H.; Jackson, Sara L.; Weaver, Donald L.

In: BMJ (Online), Vol. 353, i3069, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Elmore, JG, Tosteson, ANA, Pepe, MS, Longton, GM, Nelson, H, Geller, B, Carney, PP, Onega, T, Allison, KH, Jackson, SL & Weaver, DL 2016, 'Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: Simulation study', BMJ (Online), vol. 353, i3069. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3069
Elmore, Joann G. ; Tosteson, Anna N A ; Pepe, Margaret S. ; Longton, Gary M. ; Nelson, Heidi ; Geller, Berta ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Onega, Tracy ; Allison, Kimberly H. ; Jackson, Sara L. ; Weaver, Donald L. / Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology : Simulation study. In: BMJ (Online). 2016 ; Vol. 353.
@article{fde1839d21f14512a9f590a78de4620d,
title = "Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: Simulation study",
abstract = "Objective To evaluate the potential effect of second opinions on improving the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of breast histopathology. Design Simulation study. Setting 12 different strategies for acquiring independent second opinions. Participants Interpretations of 240 breast biopsy specimens by 115 pathologists, one slide for each case, compared with reference diagnoses derived by expert consensus. Main outcome measures Misclassification rates for individual pathologists and for 12 simulated strategies for second opinions. Simulations compared accuracy of diagnoses from single pathologists with that of diagnoses based on pairing interpretations from first and second independent pathologists, where resolution of disagreements was by an independent third pathologist. 12 strategies were evaluated in which acquisition of second opinions depended on initial diagnoses, assessment of case difficulty or borderline characteristics, pathologists' clinical volumes, or whether a second opinion was required by policy or desired by the pathologists. The 240 cases included benign without atypia (10{\%} non-proliferative, 20{\%} proliferative without atypia), atypia (30{\%}), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 30{\%}), and invasive cancer (10{\%}). Overall misclassification rates and agreement statistics depended on the composition of the test set, which included a higher prevalence of difficult cases than in typical practice. Results Misclassification rates significantly decreased (P",
author = "Elmore, {Joann G.} and Tosteson, {Anna N A} and Pepe, {Margaret S.} and Longton, {Gary M.} and Heidi Nelson and Berta Geller and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Tracy Onega and Allison, {Kimberly H.} and Jackson, {Sara L.} and Weaver, {Donald L.}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.i3069",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "353",
journal = "BMJ (Online)",
issn = "0267-0623",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology

T2 - Simulation study

AU - Elmore, Joann G.

AU - Tosteson, Anna N A

AU - Pepe, Margaret S.

AU - Longton, Gary M.

AU - Nelson, Heidi

AU - Geller, Berta

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Onega, Tracy

AU - Allison, Kimberly H.

AU - Jackson, Sara L.

AU - Weaver, Donald L.

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Objective To evaluate the potential effect of second opinions on improving the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of breast histopathology. Design Simulation study. Setting 12 different strategies for acquiring independent second opinions. Participants Interpretations of 240 breast biopsy specimens by 115 pathologists, one slide for each case, compared with reference diagnoses derived by expert consensus. Main outcome measures Misclassification rates for individual pathologists and for 12 simulated strategies for second opinions. Simulations compared accuracy of diagnoses from single pathologists with that of diagnoses based on pairing interpretations from first and second independent pathologists, where resolution of disagreements was by an independent third pathologist. 12 strategies were evaluated in which acquisition of second opinions depended on initial diagnoses, assessment of case difficulty or borderline characteristics, pathologists' clinical volumes, or whether a second opinion was required by policy or desired by the pathologists. The 240 cases included benign without atypia (10% non-proliferative, 20% proliferative without atypia), atypia (30%), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 30%), and invasive cancer (10%). Overall misclassification rates and agreement statistics depended on the composition of the test set, which included a higher prevalence of difficult cases than in typical practice. Results Misclassification rates significantly decreased (P

AB - Objective To evaluate the potential effect of second opinions on improving the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of breast histopathology. Design Simulation study. Setting 12 different strategies for acquiring independent second opinions. Participants Interpretations of 240 breast biopsy specimens by 115 pathologists, one slide for each case, compared with reference diagnoses derived by expert consensus. Main outcome measures Misclassification rates for individual pathologists and for 12 simulated strategies for second opinions. Simulations compared accuracy of diagnoses from single pathologists with that of diagnoses based on pairing interpretations from first and second independent pathologists, where resolution of disagreements was by an independent third pathologist. 12 strategies were evaluated in which acquisition of second opinions depended on initial diagnoses, assessment of case difficulty or borderline characteristics, pathologists' clinical volumes, or whether a second opinion was required by policy or desired by the pathologists. The 240 cases included benign without atypia (10% non-proliferative, 20% proliferative without atypia), atypia (30%), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 30%), and invasive cancer (10%). Overall misclassification rates and agreement statistics depended on the composition of the test set, which included a higher prevalence of difficult cases than in typical practice. Results Misclassification rates significantly decreased (P

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976538769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976538769&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.i3069

DO - 10.1136/bmj.i3069

M3 - Article

C2 - 27334105

AN - SCOPUS:84976538769

VL - 353

JO - BMJ (Online)

JF - BMJ (Online)

SN - 0267-0623

M1 - i3069

ER -