Facebook Follow AMS on Linkedin Follow us on Twitter @amsCoolAgain AMS on Instagram
  • World Menopause Day

    World Menopause Day

    Bone Health
    18 October 2021

    Read more

  • AMS Congress

    AMS Congress

    26-28 November 2021
    Adelaide, South Australia

    Read more

  • AMS Webinar

    AMS Webinar

    What’s new - The use of testosterone in women
    Available for viewing now

    Read more

  • Early Menopause and POI

    Early Menopause and POI

    Management resources for women
    and their health professionals

    Read more

  • Health Information

    Health Information

    Find an AMS Doctor, news,
    self-assessment tools and videos

    Read more

  • Health Professionals

    Health Professionals

    Menopause management resources,
    news, position statements

    Read more

  • Menopause management

    Menopause management

    AMS supporting women through
    midlife health and the menopause

    Read more

  • AMS eLearning

    AMS eLearning

    A benefit for AMS Members
    webinars, case studies
    with CPD points

    Read more

  • Menopause Videos

    Menopause Videos

    Explaining issues women
    worry most about

    Read more

AMS Congress

AMS 2021 Congress

Join us in Adelaide from 26-28 Nov for the 24th Annual AMS Congress. Share experiences and knowledge gained as we have all adapted in our approaches to Midlife and Menopause issues across the pandemic. Go to Congress page.

AMS Webinar available to view

AMS Webinar What's new The use of testosterone in women

AMS is pleased to bring you this webinar on the use of testosterone therapy in women. For GPs, endocrinologists, gynaecologists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals. 
Learn more here.

Members

AMS Members

If your work focuses on menopause and issues related to women's midlife health, become a Member of the AMS. Access information and resources which will inspire and guide improvements for your practice. Members only information.

AMS eLearning

AMS eLearning Website

AMS eLearning is free to register with low cost courses (free for AMS members). Access webinars, case studies, quizzes and other learning that attract 2020-22 CPD points.
Access here.

Health Professionals

Health professionals

Health Professionals includes AMS Congress updates, information sheets, menopause management resources, news, position statements, a selection of studies published, NAMS videos and more... See Health Professionals.

What's New | Features

What's New | Features

View the latest articles available on the AMS website. See What's New here.

View articles, resources, position statement or events of particular interest. See Features here.

Misclassification rates in breast histopathology biopsies: how can they be lowered?

13 February, 2017

Because misclassification of breast biopsies is relatively common, and no prior study had analyzed strategies for reducing error, the recent Elmore study is timely [1]. Here, 12 different strategies for acquiring second opinions were compared in order to help define which strategies worked best to reduce misclassification errors. The authors systematically tested whether and which pathology classification affected the best strategic choice for: invasive breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), atypia, proliferative without atypia, or benign without atypia. Also analyzed was the influence of the perceived case difficulty, the pathologists’ clinical volumes, and local institutional policy.

The test sample consisted of a set of 240 histopathology slides (one per case) that had previously undergone expert consensus to form a reference diagnosis. A total of 115 pathologists were assigned to one of four groups of 60 slides distributed according to the range of outcomes usually found. Each pathologist independently interpreted all 60 slides from one of the four sets of 60 breast biopsy specimens. The key findings were: (1) Over-interpretation of benign cases without atypia was cut in half (12.9% to 6.0%) by second opinions when initial diagnosis of atypia, DCIS and invasive cancer always included a second opinion; (2) atypia cases had the highest misclassification rate after a single interpretation (52.2%) which remained at more than 34% in every second opinion strategy tested; (3) excluding invasive breast cancer slides, the misclassification rates decreased (p < 0.001) from 24.7% to 18% when all of these received a second opinion; (4) high-volume pathologists (> nine cases per week) consistently delivered fewer misclassifications; (5) accuracy of diagnosis improved by the second opinion regardless of the pathologists’ confidence in their experience or diagnosis.

Comment

Because of widespread use of mass screenings in the last 20 years, concomitant increases in DCIS, atypia, proliferative without atypia and invasive breast cancer have been recorded. Unfortunately, invasive cancers that might never have been detected or caused harm have been estimated at about one-third of all new cases in women [2-5].

The present study has acknowledged its limitation in that only one slide per case is shown. But it forcefully clarifies the value of second opinions in reducing misclassification errors, and to identifying 'experienced' pathologists who are doing the readings. Unfortunately, second opinions are not commonly required by the institutions for the conditions with the highest misclassification rates.

According to a recent population-based case-control study of major coronary events in Denmark and Sweden, exposure of the heart to ionizing radiation during radiotherapy for breast cancer increases the subsequent rate of ischemic heart disease by an average of 37%. The increase in rate of ischemic heart disease is proportional to the mean dose to the heart and can more than double a woman’s risk for cardiac mortality. The increased rate begins within a few years after exposure, and continues for at least 20 years. Women with pre-existing cardiac risk factors have greater absolute increases in risk from radiotherapy than other women [6].

Consequently, reducing breast biopsy misclassifications can alter, in patients’ favor, the balance between the benefits of evidence-based treatment for breast cancer pathologies and the body-wide harms that unneeded treatments will generate.

Winnifred Cutler

Athena Institute for Women’s Wellness, Chester Springs, PA, USA

and

James Kolter

Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

References

  1. Elmore JG, Tosteson AN, Pepe MS, Longton GM, Nelson HD. Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study. BMJ 2016;353:i3069
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27334105
  2. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organized mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 2009;339:1-8
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589821
  3. Gilbert Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1438-47
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27732805
  4. Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC, Kalager M, Zahl PH. Breast cancer screening in Denmark: a cohort study of tumor size and overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med 2017 Jan 10. Epub ahead of print
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28114661
  5. Brawley OW. Accepting the existence of breast cancer overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med 2017 Jan 10. Epub ahead of print
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28114628
  6. Darby SC, Ewertz M, McGale P, et al. Risk of ischemic heart disease in women after radiotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:987-98
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23484825
 

Search

Facebook Follow AMS on Linkedin Follow us on Twitter @amsCoolAgainAMS on Instagram