Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Interobserver variation in the diagnosis of fibroepithelial lesions of the breast: a multicentre audit by digital pathology
Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, England; Univ Leeds, England; Fiona Stanley Hosp, Australia; Univ Western Australia, Australia; Univ Western Australia, Australia.
Nottingham Univ Hosp NHS Trust, England.
Univ Western Australia, Australia; Univ Western Australia, Australia.
Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, England.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Journal of Clinical Pathology, ISSN 0021-9746, E-ISSN 1472-4146, Vol. 71, no 8, p. 672-679Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aim Fibroepithelial lesions (FELs) of the breast span a morphological continuum including lesions where distinction between cellular fibroadenoma (FA) and benign phyllodes tumour (PT) is difficult. The distinction is clinically important with FAs managed conservatively while equivocal lesions and PTs are managed with surgery. We sought to audit core biopsy diagnoses of equivocal FELs by digital pathology and to investigate whether digital point counting is useful in clarifying FEL diagnoses. Method Scanned slide images from cores and subsequent excisions of 69 equivocal FELs were examined in a multicentre audit by eight pathologists to determine the agreement and accuracy of core needle biopsy (CNB) diagnoses and by digital point counting of stromal cellularity and expansion to determine if classification could be improved. Results Interobserver variation was high on CNB with a unanimous diagnosis from all pathologists in only eight cases of FA, diagnoses of both FA and PT on the same CNB in 15 and a weak mean kappa agreement between pathologists (k=0.36). Moderate agreement was observed on CNBs among breast specialists (k=0.44) and on excision samples (k=0.49). Up to 23% of lesions confidently diagnosed as FA on CNB were PT on excision and up to 30% of lesions confidently diagnosed as PT on CNB were FA on excision. Digital point counting did not aid in the classification of FELs. Conclusion Accurate and reproducible diagnosis of equivocal FELs is difficult, particularly on CNB, resulting in poor interobserver agreement and suboptimal accuracy. Given the diagnostic difficulty, and surgical implications, equivocal FELs should be reported in consultation with experienced breast pathologists as a small number of benign FAs can be selected out from equivocal lesions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP , 2018. Vol. 71, no 8, p. 672-679
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-151209DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2017-204977ISI: 000442467400003PubMedID: 29440134OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-151209DiVA, id: diva2:1248033
Available from: 2018-09-13 Created: 2018-09-13 Last updated: 2019-05-01

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Treanor, Darren
By organisation
Division of Neuro and Inflammation ScienceFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesClinical pathology
In the same journal
Journal of Clinical Pathology
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 17 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf