Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: Lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel

Kimberly H. Allison, Lisa M. Reisch, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Donald L. Weaver, Stuart J. Schnitt, Frances P. O'Malley, Berta M. Geller, Joann G. Elmore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. Methods and results: In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. Conclusions: Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)240-251
Number of pages12
JournalHistopathology
Volume65
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Breast
Pathology
Artifacts
Pathologists

Keywords

  • Atypical ductal hyperplasia
  • Borderline breast lesions
  • Breast pathology
  • Diagnostic disagreement
  • Diagnostic variability
  • Pathologist agreement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Histology
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Allison, K. H., Reisch, L. M., Carney, P. P., Weaver, D. L., Schnitt, S. J., O'Malley, F. P., ... Elmore, J. G. (2014). Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: Lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel. Histopathology, 65(2), 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12387

Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology : Lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel. / Allison, Kimberly H.; Reisch, Lisa M.; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Weaver, Donald L.; Schnitt, Stuart J.; O'Malley, Frances P.; Geller, Berta M.; Elmore, Joann G.

In: Histopathology, Vol. 65, No. 2, 2014, p. 240-251.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Allison, KH, Reisch, LM, Carney, PP, Weaver, DL, Schnitt, SJ, O'Malley, FP, Geller, BM & Elmore, JG 2014, 'Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: Lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel', Histopathology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12387
Allison, Kimberly H. ; Reisch, Lisa M. ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Weaver, Donald L. ; Schnitt, Stuart J. ; O'Malley, Frances P. ; Geller, Berta M. ; Elmore, Joann G. / Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology : Lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel. In: Histopathology. 2014 ; Vol. 65, No. 2. pp. 240-251.
@article{03a2f60207e54d52a06fd885f8a4f0c2,
title = "Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: Lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel",
abstract = "Aims: To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. Methods and results: In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. Conclusions: Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.",
keywords = "Atypical ductal hyperplasia, Borderline breast lesions, Breast pathology, Diagnostic disagreement, Diagnostic variability, Pathologist agreement",
author = "Allison, {Kimberly H.} and Reisch, {Lisa M.} and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Weaver, {Donald L.} and Schnitt, {Stuart J.} and O'Malley, {Frances P.} and Geller, {Berta M.} and Elmore, {Joann G.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1111/his.12387",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "65",
pages = "240--251",
journal = "Histopathology",
issn = "0309-0167",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology

T2 - Lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel

AU - Allison, Kimberly H.

AU - Reisch, Lisa M.

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Weaver, Donald L.

AU - Schnitt, Stuart J.

AU - O'Malley, Frances P.

AU - Geller, Berta M.

AU - Elmore, Joann G.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Aims: To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. Methods and results: In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. Conclusions: Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.

AB - Aims: To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. Methods and results: In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. Conclusions: Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.

KW - Atypical ductal hyperplasia

KW - Borderline breast lesions

KW - Breast pathology

KW - Diagnostic disagreement

KW - Diagnostic variability

KW - Pathologist agreement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904399310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904399310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/his.12387

DO - 10.1111/his.12387

M3 - Article

C2 - 24511905

AN - SCOPUS:84904399310

VL - 65

SP - 240

EP - 251

JO - Histopathology

JF - Histopathology

SN - 0309-0167

IS - 2

ER -