Internal Standard Triggered-Parallel Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry Enables Multiplexed Quantification of Candidate Biomarkers in Plasma.

Despite advances in proteomic technologies, clinical translation of plasma biomarkers remains low, partly due to a major bottleneck between the discovery of candidate biomarkers and costly clinical validation studies. Due to a dearth of multiplexable assays, generally only a few candidate biomarkers are tested, and the validation success rate is accordingly low. Previously, mass spectrometry-based approaches have been used to fill this gap but feature poor quantitative performance and were generally limited to hundreds of proteins. Here, we demonstrate the capability of an internal standard triggered-parallel reaction monitoring (IS-PRM) assay to greatly expand the numbers of candidates that can be tested with improved quantitative performance. The assay couples immunodepletion and fractionation with IS-PRM and was developed and implemented in human plasma to quantify 5176 peptides representing 1314 breast cancer biomarker candidates. Characterization of the IS-PRM assay demonstrated the precision (median % CV of 7.7%), linearity (median R2 > 0.999 over 4 orders of magnitude), and sensitivity (median LLOQ < 1 fmol, approximately) to enable rank-ordering of candidate biomarkers for validation studies. Using three plasma pools from breast cancer patients and three control pools, 893 proteins were quantified, of which 162 candidate biomarkers were verified in at least one of the cancer pools and 22 were verified in all three cancer pools. The assay greatly expands capabilities for quantification of large numbers of proteins and is well suited for prioritization of viable candidate biomarkers.

Histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions: blinded and nonblinded second opinions offer similar improvement in diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of second opinions in the diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions have examined blinded second opinions, which do not reflect usual clinical practice. The current study, conducted in the USA, investigated both blinded and nonblinded second opinions for their impact on diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: In total, 100 melanocytic skin biopsy cases, ranging from benign to invasive melanoma, were interpreted by 74 dermatopathologists. Subsequently, 151 dermatopathologists performed nonblinded second and third reviews. We compared the accuracy of single reviewers, second opinions obtained from independent, blinded reviewers and second opinions obtained from sequential, nonblinded reviewers. Accuracy was defined with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis. RESULTS: The mean case-level diagnostic accuracy of single reviewers was 65.3% (95% CI 63.4-67.2%). Second opinions arising from sequential, nonblinded reviewers significantly improved accuracy to 69.9% (95% CI 68.0-71.7%; P < 0.001). Similarly, second opinions arising from blinded reviewers improved upon the accuracy of single reviewers (69.2%; 95% CI 68.0-71.7%). Nonblinded reviewers were more likely than blinded reviewers to give diagnoses in the same diagnostic classes as the first diagnosis. Nonblinded reviewers tended to be more confident when they agreed with previous reviewers, even with inaccurate diagnoses. CONCLUSION: We found that both blinded and nonblinded second reviewers offered a similar modest improvement in diagnostic accuracy compared with single reviewers. Obtaining second opinions with knowledge of previous reviews tends to generate agreement among reviews, and may generate unwarranted confidence in an inaccurate diagnosis. Combining aspects of both blinded and nonblinded review in practice may leverage the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages of each approach. Specifically, a second pathologist could give an initial diagnosis blinded to the results of the first pathologist, with subsequent nonblinded discussion between the two pathologists if their diagnoses differ.

Association of Second-Opinion Strategies in the Histopathologic Diagnosis of Cutaneous Melanocytic Lesions With Diagnostic Accuracy and Population-Level Costs.

IMPORTANCE: Diagnostic variation among pathologists interpreting cutaneous melanocytic lesions could lead to suboptimal care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential association of second-opinion strategies in the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions with diagnostic accuracy and 1-year population-level costs in the US. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Decision analysis with 1-year time horizon including melanocytic lesion diagnoses available from US pathologists participating in the Melanoma Pathology Study (M-Path) and from the study panel of reference pathologists who classified cases using the MPATH-Dx classification tool. M-Path data collection occurred from July 2013 through March 2015; analyses for the present study were performed between April 2015 and January 2021. EXPOSURES: Various second-opinion strategies for interpretation of melanocytic cutaneous lesions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated accuracy of pathologists' diagnoses, defined as concordance with the reference panel diagnoses, and 1-year postbiopsy medical costs under various second-opinion strategies. Expected percentage of concordant diagnoses, including percentages of overinterpretation and underinterpretation, and 1-year costs of medical care per 100 000 in the US population. RESULTS: Decision-analytic model parameters were based on diagnostic interpretations for 240 cases by 187 pathologists compared with reference panel diagnoses. Without second opinions, 83.2% of diagnoses in the US were estimated to be accurate-ie, concordant with the reference diagnosis; with overinterpretation (8.0%) or underinterpretation (8.8%), and 16 850 misclassified diagnoses per 100 000 biopsies. Accuracy increased under all second-opinion strategies. Accuracy (87.4% concordance with 3.6% overinterpretation and 9.1% underinterpretation) and cost (an increase of more than $10 million per 100 000 biopsies per year) were highest when second opinions were universal (eg, performed on all biopsies), relative to no second opinions. A selective second-opinion strategy based on pathologists' desire or institutional requirements for a second opinion was most accurate (86.5% concordance; 4.4% overinterpretation; 9.1% underinterpretation) and would reduce costs by more than $1.9 million per 100 000 skin biopsies relative to no second opinions. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy with all second-opinion strategies were associated with reductions in overinterpretation but not underinterpretation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this decision-analytic model, selective second-opinion strategies for interpretation of melanocytic skin lesions showed the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and decrease costs relative to no second opinions or universal second opinions.

Plasma miRNA Biomarkers in Limited Volume Samples for Detection of Early-stage Pancreatic Cancer.

Early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is key to improving patient outcomes; however, PDAC is usually diagnosed late. Therefore, blood-based minimally invasive biomarker assays for limited volume clinical samples are urgently needed. A novel miRNA profiling platform (Abcam Fireplex-Oncology Panel) was used to investigate the feasibility of developing early detection miRNA biomarkers with 20 µL plasma from a training set (58 stage II PDAC cases and 30 controls) and two validation sets (34 stage II PDAC cases and 25 controls; 44 stage II PDAC cases and 18 controls). miR-34a-5p [AUC = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.87], miR-130a-3p (AUC = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.84), and miR-222-3p (AUC = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81) were identified as significantly differentially abundant in plasma from stage II PDAC versus controls. Although none of the miRNAs individually outperformed the currently used serologic biomarker for PDAC, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), combining the miRNAs with CA 19-9 improved AUCs from 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.95) for CA 19-9 alone to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98), and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97), respectively. Gene set enrichment analyses of transcripts correlated with high and low expression of the three miRNAs in The Cancer Genome Atlas PDAC sample set. These miRNA biomarkers, assayed in limited volume plasma together with CA19-9, discriminate stage II PDAC from controls with good sensitivity and specificity. Unbiased profiling of larger cohorts should help develop an informative early detection biomarker assay for diagnostic settings. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Development of minimally invasive biomarker assays for detection of premalignant disease and early-stage pancreatic cancer is key to improving patient survival. This study describes a limited volume plasma miRNA biomarker assay that can detect early-stage resectable pancreatic cancer in clinical samples necessary for effective prevention and clinical intervention.

Use of the MyProstateScore Test to Rule Out Clinically Significant Cancer: Validation of a Straightforward Clinical Testing Approach.

PURPOSE: The MyProstateScore test was validated for improved detection of clinically significant (grade group ≥2) prostate cancer relative to prostate specific antigen based risk calculators. We sought to validate an optimal MyProstateScore threshold for clinical use in ruling out grade group ≥2 cancer in men referred for biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy naïve men provided post-digital rectal examination urine prior to biopsy. MyProstateScore was calculated using the validated, locked multivariable model including only serum prostate specific antigen, urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 and urinary TMPRSS2:ERG. The MyProstateScore threshold approximating 95% sensitivity for grade group ≥2 cancer was identified in a training cohort, and performance was measured in 2 external validation cohorts. We assessed the 1) overall biopsy referral population and 2) population meeting guideline based testing criteria (ie, prostate specific antigen 3-10, or <3 with suspicious digital rectal examination). RESULTS: Validation cohorts were prospectively enrolled from academic (977 patients, median prostate specific antigen 4.5, IQR 3.1-6.0) and community (548, median prostate specific antigen 4.9, IQR 3.7-6.8) settings. In the overall validation population (1,525 patients), 338 men (22%) had grade group ≥2 cancer on biopsy. The MyProstateScore threshold of 10 provided 97% sensitivity and 98% negative predictive value for grade group ≥2 cancer. MyProstateScore testing would have prevented 387 unnecessary biopsies (33%), while missing only 10 grade group ≥2 cancers (3.0%). In 1,242 patients meeting guideline based criteria, MyProstateScore ≤10 provided 96% sensitivity and 97% negative predictive value, and would have prevented 32% of unnecessary biopsies, missing 3.7% of grade group ≥2 cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, clinically pertinent biopsy referral population, MyProstateScore ≤10 provided exceptional sensitivity and negative predictive value for ruling out grade group ≥2 cancer. This straightforward secondary testing approach would reduce the use of more costly and invasive procedures after screening with prostate specific antigen.

Assessment of Second-Opinion Strategies for Diagnoses of Cutaneous Melanocytic Lesions.

Importance: Histopathologic criteria have limited diagnostic reliability for a range of cutaneous melanocytic lesions. Objective: To evaluate the association of second-opinion strategies by general pathologists and dermatopathologists with the overall reliability of diagnosis of difficult melanocytic lesions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study used samples from the Melanoma Pathology Study, which comprises 240 melanocytic lesion samples selected from a dermatopathology laboratory in Bellevue, Washington, and represents the full spectrum of lesions from common nevi to invasive melanoma. Five sets of 48 samples were evaluated independently by 187 US pathologists from July 15, 2013, through May 23, 2016. Data analysis was performed from April 2016 through November 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy of diagnosis, defined as concordance with an expert consensus diagnosis of 3 experienced pathologists, was assessed after applying 10 different second-opinion strategies. Results: Among the 187 US pathologists examining the 24 lesion samples, 113 were general pathologists (65 men [57.5%]; mean age at survey, 53.7 years [range, 33.0-79.0 years]) and 74 were dermatopathologists (49 men [66.2%]; mean age at survey, 46.4 years [range, 33.0-77.0 years]). Among the 8976 initial case interpretations, physicians desired second opinions for 3899 (43.4%), most often for interpretation of severely dysplastic nevi. The overall misclassification rate was highest when interpretations did not include second opinions and initial reviewers were all general pathologists lacking subspecialty training (52.8%; 95% CI, 51.3%-54.3%). When considering different second opinion strategies, the misclassification of melanocytic lesions was lowest when the first, second, and third consulting reviewers were subspecialty-trained dermatopathologists and when all lesions were subject to second opinions (36.7%; 95% CI, 33.1%-40.7%). When the second opinion strategies were compared with single interpretations without second opinions, the reductions in misclassification rates for some of the strategies were statistically significant, but none of the strategies eliminated diagnostic misclassification. Melanocytic lesions in the middle of the diagnostic spectrum had the highest misclassification rates (eg, moderately or severely dysplastic nevus, Spitz nevus, melanoma in situ, and pathologic stage [p]T1a invasive melanoma). Variability of in situ and thin invasive melanoma was relatively intractable to all examined strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that second opinions rendered by dermatopathologists improve reliability of melanocytic lesion diagnosis. However, discordance among pathologists remained high.

Concordance and Reproducibility of Melanoma Staging According to the 7th vs 8th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

IMPORTANCE: The recently updated American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification of cancer staging, the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (AJCC 8), includes revisions to definitions of T1a vs T1b or greater. The Melanoma Pathology Study database affords a comparison,of pathologists' concordance and reproducibility in the microstaging of melanoma according to both the existing 7th edition (AJCC 7) and the new AJCC 8. OBJECTIVE: To compare AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 to examine whether changes to the definitions of T1a and T1b or greater are associated with changes in concordance and reproducibility. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In this diagnostic study conducted as part of the national Melanoma Pathology Study across US states, 187 pathologists interpreting melanocytic skin lesions in practice completed 4342 independent case interpretations of 116 invasive melanoma cases. A consensus reference diagnosis and participating pathologists' interpretations were classified into the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis class IV (T1a) or class V ( T1b) using both the AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Concordance with consensus reference diagnosis, interobserver reproducibility, and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS: For T1a diagnoses, participating pathologists' concordance with the consensus reference diagnosis increased from 44% (95% CI, 41%-48%) to 54% (95% CI, 51%-57%) using AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 criteria, respectively. The concordance for cases of T1b or greater increased from 72% (95% CI, 69%-75%) to 78% (95% CI, 75%-80%). Intraobserver reproducibility of diagnoses also improved, increasing from 59% (95% CI, 56%-63%) to 64% (95% CI, 62%-67%) for T1a invasive melanoma, and from 74% (95% CI, 71%-76%) to 77% (95% CI, 74%-79%) for T1b or greater invasive melanoma cases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Melanoma staging in AJCC 8 shows greater reproducibility and higher concordance with a reference standard. Improved classification of invasive melanoma can be expected after implementation of AJCC 8, suggesting a positive impact on patients. However, despite improvement, concordance and reproducibility remain low.

Accuracy of Digital Pathologic Analysis vs Traditional Microscopy in the Interpretation of Melanocytic Lesions.

Importance: Use of digital whole-slide imaging (WSI) for dermatopathology in general has been noted to be similar to traditional microscopy (TM); however, concern has been noted that WSI is inferior for interpretation of melanocytic lesions. Since approximately 1 of every 4 skin biopsies is of a melanocytic lesion, the use of WSI requires verification before use in clinical practice. Objective: To compare pathologists' accuracy and reproducibility in diagnosing melanocytic lesions using Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) categories when analyzing by TM vs WSI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 87 pathologists in community-based and academic settings from 10 US states were randomized with stratification based on clinical experience to interpret in TM format 180 skin biopsy cases of melanocytic lesions, including 90 invasive melanoma, divided into 5 sets of 36 cases (phase 1). The pathologists were then randomized via stratified permuted block randomization with block size 2 to interpret cases in either TM (n = 46) or WSI format (n = 41), with each pathologist interpreting the same 36 cases on 2 separate occasions (phase 2). Diagnoses were categorized as MPATH-Dx categories I through V, with I indicating the least severe and V the most severe. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis and the reproducibility of repeated interpretations of the same cases. Results: Of the 87 pathologists in the study, 46% (40) were women and the mean (SD) age was 50.7 (10.2) years. Except for class III melanocytic lesions, the diagnostic categories showed no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TM and WSI interpretation. Discordance was lower among class III lesions for the TM interpretation arm (51%; 95% CI, 46%-57%) than for the WSI arm (61%; 95% CI, 53%-69%) (P = .05). This difference is likely to have clinical significance, because 6% of TM vs 11% of WSI class III lesions were interpreted as invasive melanoma. Reproducibility was similar between the traditional and digital formats overall (66.4%; 95% CI, 63.3%-69.3%; and 62.7%; 95% CI, 59.5%-65.7%, respectively), and for all classes, although class III showed a nonsignificant lower intraobserver agreement for digital. Significantly more mitotic figures were detected with TM compared with WSI: mean (SD) TM, 6.72 (2.89); WSI, 5.84 (2.56); P = .002. Conclusions and Relevance: Interpretive accuracy for melanocytic lesions was similar for WSI and TM slides except for class III lesions. We found no clinically meaningful differences in reproducibility for any of the diagnostic classes.

Pathologist characteristics associated with accuracy and reproducibility of melanocytic skin lesion interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic interpretations of melanocytic skin lesions vary widely among pathologists, yet the underlying reasons remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: Identify pathologist characteristics associated with rates of accuracy and reproducibility. METHODS: Pathologists independently interpreted the same set of biopsy specimens from melanocytic lesions on 2 occasions. Diagnoses were categorized into 1 of 5 classes according to the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis system. Reproducibility was determined by pathologists' concordance of diagnoses across 2 occasions. Accuracy was defined by concordance with a consensus reference standard. Associations of pathologist characteristics with reproducibility and accuracy were assessed individually and in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Rates of diagnostic reproducibility and accuracy were highest among pathologists with board certification and/or fellowship training in dermatopathology and in those with 5 or more years of experience. In addition, accuracy was high among pathologists with a higher proportion of melanocytic lesions in their caseload composition and higher volume of melanocytic lesions. LIMITATIONS: Data gathered in a test set situation by using a classification tool not currently in clinical use. CONCLUSION: Diagnoses are more accurate among pathologists with specialty training and those with more experience interpreting melanocytic lesions. These findings support the practice of referring difficult cases to more experienced pathologists to improve diagnostic accuracy, although the impact of these referrals on patient outcomes requires additional research.

Second opinion strategies in breast pathology: a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs.

PURPOSE: To estimate the potential near-term population impact of alternative second opinion breast biopsy pathology interpretation strategies. METHODS: Decision analysis examining 12-month outcomes of breast biopsy for nine breast pathology interpretation strategies in the U.S. health system. Diagnoses of 115 practicing pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study were compared to reference-standard-consensus diagnoses with and without second opinions. Interpretation strategies were defined by whether a second opinion was sought universally or selectively (e.g., 2nd opinion if invasive). Main outcomes were the expected proportion of concordant breast biopsy diagnoses, the proportion involving over- or under-interpretation, and cost of care in U.S. dollars within one-year of biopsy. RESULTS: Without a second opinion, 92.2% of biopsies received a concordant diagnosis. Concordance rates increased under all second opinion strategies, and the rate was highest (95.1%) and under-treatment lowest (2.6%) when all biopsies had second opinions. However, over-treatment was lowest when second opinions were sought selectively for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia (1.8 vs. 4.7% with no 2nd opinions). This strategy also had the lowest projected 12-month care costs ($5.907 billion vs. $6.049 billion with no 2nd opinions). CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion strategies could lower overall care costs while reducing both over- and under-treatment. The most accurate cost-saving strategy required second opinions for initial diagnoses of invasive cancer, DCIS, or atypia.

Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study.

Objective To quantify the accuracy and reproducibility of pathologists' diagnoses of melanocytic skin lesions.Design Observer accuracy and reproducibility study.Setting 10 US states.Participants Skin biopsy cases (n=240), grouped into sets of 36 or 48. Pathologists from 10 US states were randomized to independently interpret the same set on two occasions (phases 1 and 2), at least eight months apart.Main outcome measures Pathologists' interpretations were condensed into five classes: I (eg, nevus or mild atypia); II (eg, moderate atypia); III (eg, severe atypia or melanoma in situ); IV (eg, pathologic stage T1a (pT1a) early invasive melanoma); and V (eg, ≥pT1b invasive melanoma). Reproducibility was assessed by intraobserver and interobserver concordance rates, and accuracy by concordance with three reference diagnoses.Results In phase 1, 187 pathologists completed 8976 independent case interpretations resulting in an average of 10 (SD 4) different diagnostic terms applied to each case. Among pathologists interpreting the same cases in both phases, when pathologists diagnosed a case as class I or class V during phase 1, they gave the same diagnosis in phase 2 for the majority of cases (class I 76.7%; class V 82.6%). However, the intraobserver reproducibility was lower for cases interpreted as class II (35.2%), class III (59.5%), and class IV (63.2%). Average interobserver concordance rates were lower, but with similar trends. Accuracy using a consensus diagnosis of experienced pathologists as reference varied by class: I, 92% (95% confidence interval 90% to 94%); II, 25% (22% to 28%); III, 40% (37% to 44%); IV, 43% (39% to 46%); and V, 72% (69% to 75%). It is estimated that at a population level, 82.8% (81.0% to 84.5%) of melanocytic skin biopsy diagnoses would have their diagnosis verified if reviewed by a consensus reference panel of experienced pathologists, with 8.0% (6.2% to 9.9%) of cases overinterpreted by the initial pathologist and 9.2% (8.8% to 9.6%) underinterpreted.Conclusion Diagnoses spanning moderately dysplastic nevi to early stage invasive melanoma were neither reproducible nor accurate in this large study of pathologists in the USA. Efforts to improve clinical practice should include using a standardized classification system, acknowledging uncertainty in pathology reports, and developing tools such as molecular markers to support pathologists' visual assessments.

The diagnostic challenge of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic agreement among pathologists is 84% for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Studies of interpretive variation according to grade are limited. METHODS: A national sample of 115 pathologists interpreted 240 breast pathology test set cases in the Breast Pathology Study and their interpretations were compared to expert consensus interpretations. We assessed agreement of pathologists' interpretations with a consensus reference diagnosis of DCIS dichotomised into low- and high-grade lesions. Generalised estimating equations were used in logistic regression models of rates of under- and over-interpretation of DCIS by grade. RESULTS: We evaluated 2097 independent interpretations of DCIS (512 low-grade DCIS and 1585 high-grade DCIS). Agreement with reference diagnoses was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42-51) for low-grade DCIS and 83% (95% CI 81-86) for high-grade DCIS. The proportion of reference low-grade DCIS interpretations over-interpreted by pathologists (i.e. categorised as either high-grade DCIS or invasive cancer) was 23% (95% CI 19-28); 30% (95% CI 26-34) were interpreted as a lower diagnostic category (atypia or benign proliferative). Reference high-grade DCIS was under-interpreted in 14% (95% CI 12-16) of observations and only over-interpreted 3% (95% CI 2-4). CONCLUSION: Grade is a major factor when examining pathologists' variability in diagnosing DCIS, with much lower agreement for low-grade DCIS cases compared to high-grade. These findings support the hypothesis that low-grade DCIS poses a greater interpretive challenge than high-grade DCIS, which should be considered when developing DCIS management strategies.

A Randomized Study Comparing Digital Imaging to Traditional Glass Slide Microscopy for Breast Biopsy and Cancer Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Digital whole slide imaging may be useful for obtaining second opinions and is used in many countries. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires verification studies. METHODS: Pathologists were randomized to interpret one of four sets of breast biopsy cases during two phases, separated by ≥9 months, using glass slides or digital format (sixty cases per set, one slide per case, n = 240 cases). Accuracy was assessed by comparing interpretations to a consensus reference standard. Intraobserver reproducibility was assessed by comparing the agreement of interpretations on the same cases between two phases. Estimated probabilities of confirmation by a reference panel (i.e., predictive values) were obtained by incorporating data on the population prevalence of diagnoses. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of responding pathologists were eligible, and 252 consented to randomization; 208 completed Phase I (115 glass, 93 digital); and 172 completed Phase II (86 glass, 86 digital). Accuracy was slightly higher using glass compared to digital format and varied by category: invasive carcinoma, 96% versus 93% (P = 0.04); ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 84% versus 79% (P < 0.01); atypia, 48% versus 43% (P = 0.08); and benign without atypia, 87% versus 82% (P < 0.01). There was a small decrease in intraobserver agreement when the format changed compared to when glass slides were used in both phases (P = 0.08). Predictive values for confirmation by a reference panel using glass versus digital were: invasive carcinoma, 98% and 97% (not significant [NS]); DCIS, 70% and 57% (P = 0.007); atypia, 38% and 28% (P = 0.002); and benign without atypia, 97% and 96% (NS). CONCLUSIONS: In this large randomized study, digital format interpretations were similar to glass slide interpretations of benign and invasive cancer cases. However, cases in the middle of the spectrum, where more inherent variability exists, may be more problematic in digital format. Future studies evaluating the effect these findings exert on clinical practice and patient outcomes are required.

Association Between Benign Breast Disease in African American and White American Women and Subsequent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Compared with white American (WA) women, African American (AA) women have a 2-fold higher incidence of breast cancers that are negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and ERBB2 (triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]). Triple-negative breast cancer, compared with non-TNBC, likely arises from different pathogenetic pathways, and benign breast disease (BBD) predicts future non-TNBC. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether AA identity remains associated with TNBC for women with a prior diagnosis of BBD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study is a retrospective analysis of data of a cohort of 2588 AA and 3566 WA women aged between 40 and 70 years with a biopsy-proven BBD diagnosis. The data-obtained from the Pathology Information System of Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), an integrated multihospital and multispecialty health care system headquartered in Detroit, Michigan-include specimens of biopsies performed between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2005. Data analysis was performed from November 1, 2015, to June 15, 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Subsequent breast cancer was stratified on the basis of combinations of hormone receptor and ERBB2 expression. RESULTS: Case management, follow-up, and outcomes received or obtained by our cohort of 2588 AA and 3566 WA patients were similar, demonstrating that HFHS delivered care equitably. Subsequent breast cancers developed in 103 (4.1%) of AA patients (mean follow-up interval of 6.8 years) and 143 (4.0%) of WA patients (mean follow-up interval of 6.1 years). More than three-quarters of subsequent breast cancers in each subset were ductal carcinoma in situ or stage I. The 10-year probability estimate for developing TNBC was 0.56% (95% CI, 0.32%-1.0%) for AA patients and 0.25% (95% CI, 0.12%-0.53%) for WA patients. Among the 66 AA patients who developed subsequent invasive breast cancer, 16 (24.2%) developed TNBC compared with 7 (7.4%) of the 94 WA patients who developed subsequent invasive breast cancers and had complete biomarker data (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study is the largest analysis to date of TNBC in the context of racial/ethnic identity and BBD as risk factors. The study found that AA identity persisted as a significant risk factor for TNBC. This finding suggests that AA identity is associated with inherent susceptibility for TNBC pathogenetic pathways.

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

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<0.001) with all second opinion strategies except for the strategy limiting second opinions only to cases of invasive cancer. The overall misclassification rate decreased from 24.7% to 18.1% when all cases received second opinions (P<0.001). Obtaining both first and second opinions from pathologists with a high volume (≥10 breast biopsy specimens weekly) resulted in the lowest misclassification rate in this test set (14.3%, 95% confidence interval 10.9% to 18.0%). Obtaining second opinions only for cases with initial interpretations of atypia, DCIS, or invasive cancer decreased the over-interpretation of benign cases without atypia from 12.9% to 6.0%. Atypia cases had the highest misclassification rate after single interpretation (52.2%), remaining at more than 34% in all second opinion scenarios. CONCLUSION:  Second opinions can statistically significantly improve diagnostic agreement for pathologists' interpretations of breast biopsy specimens; however, variability in diagnosis will not be completely eliminated, especially for breast specimens with atypia.

Achieving consensus for the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic lesions: use of the modified Delphi method.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the sophisticated nature of coming to consensus when diagnosing complex melanocytic lesions among a panel of experienced dermatopathologists. METHODS: A total of 240 melanocytic lesions were assessed independently by three experienced dermatopathologists with their diagnoses mapped into one of five Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-DX) categories: (I) nevus/mild atypia, (II) moderate atypia, (III) severe atypia/melanoma in situ, (IV) T1a invasive melanoma and (V) ≥ T1b invasive melanoma. The dermatopathologists then discussed the cases, using a modified Delphi method to facilitated consensus building for cases with discordant diagnoses. RESULTS: For most cases, a majority of interpretations (two or three of three) agreed with the consensus diagnosis in 95% of Category I, 64% of Category II, 84% of Category III, 88% for Category IV and 100% of Category V cases. Disagreements were typically due to diagnostic threshold differences (64.5%), differing contents on slides even though the slides were sequential cuts (18.5%), and missed findings (15.3%). Disagreements were resolved via discussion of histopathologic features and their significance while reviewing the slides using a multi-headed microscope, considering treatment recommendations, citing existing literature, reviewing additional slides for a case, and choosing a provisional/borderline diagnosis to capture diverse opinions. All experienced pathologists participating in this study reported that the process of coming to consensus was challenging for borderline cases and may have represented compromise rather than consensus. They also reported the process changed their approaches to diagnosing complex melanocytic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent reason for disagreement of experienced dermatopathologists was differences in diagnostic thresholds related to observer viewpoints. A range of approaches was needed to come to consensus, and this may guide pathology groups who do not currently hold consensus conferences.

Variability in Pathologists' Interpretations of Individual Breast Biopsy Slides: A Population Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The effect of physician diagnostic variability on accuracy at a population level depends on the prevalence of diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how diagnostic variability affects accuracy from the perspective of a U.S. woman aged 50 to 59 years having a breast biopsy. DESIGN: Applied probability using Bayes' theorem. SETTING: B-Path (Breast Pathology) Study comparing pathologists' interpretations of a single biopsy slide versus a reference consensus interpretation from 3 experts. PARTICIPANTS: 115 practicing pathologists (6900 total interpretations from 240 distinct cases). MEASUREMENTS: A single representative slide from each of the 240 cases was used to estimate the proportion of biopsies with a diagnosis that would be verified if the same slide were interpreted by a reference group of 3 expert pathologists. Probabilities of confirmation (predictive values) were estimated using B-Path Study results and prevalence of biopsy diagnoses for women aged 50 to 59 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. RESULTS: Overall, if 1 representative slide were used per case, 92.3% (95% CI, 91.4% to 93.1%) of breast biopsy diagnoses would be verified by reference consensus diagnoses, with 4.6% (CI, 3.9% to 5.3%) overinterpreted and 3.2% (CI, 2.7% to 3.6%) underinterpreted. Verification of invasive breast cancer and benign without atypia diagnoses is highly probable; estimated predictive values were 97.7% (CI, 96.5% to 98.7%) and 97.1% (CI, 96.7% to 97.4%), respectively. Verification is less probable for atypia (53.6% overinterpreted and 8.6% underinterpreted) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (18.5% overinterpreted and 11.8% underinterpreted). LIMITATIONS: Estimates are based on a testing situation with 1 slide used per case and without access to second opinions. Population-adjusted estimates may differ for women from other age groups, unscreened women, or women in different practice settings. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on interpretation of a single breast biopsy slide per case, predicts a low likelihood that a diagnosis of atypia or DCIS would be verified by a reference consensus diagnosis. This diagnostic grey zone should be considered in clinical management decisions in patients with these diagnoses. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens.

IMPORTANCE: A breast pathology diagnosis provides the basis for clinical treatment and management decisions; however, its accuracy is inadequately understood. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the magnitude of diagnostic disagreement among pathologists compared with a consensus panel reference diagnosis and to evaluate associated patient and pathologist characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Study of pathologists who interpret breast biopsies in clinical practices in 8 US states. EXPOSURES: Participants independently interpreted slides between November 2011 and May 2014 from test sets of 60 breast biopsies (240 total cases, 1 slide per case), including 23 cases of invasive breast cancer, 73 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 72 with atypical hyperplasia (atypia), and 72 benign cases without atypia. Participants were blinded to the interpretations of other study pathologists and consensus panel members. Among the 3 consensus panel members, unanimous agreement of their independent diagnoses was 75%, and concordance with the consensus-derived reference diagnoses was 90.3%. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportions of diagnoses overinterpreted and underinterpreted relative to the consensus-derived reference diagnoses were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented to participate. Of these, 91% (N = 115) completed the study, providing 6900 individual case diagnoses. Compared with the consensus-derived reference diagnosis, the overall concordance rate of diagnostic interpretations of participating pathologists was 75.3% (95% CI, 73.4%-77.0%; 5194 of 6900 interpretations). Among invasive carcinoma cases (663 interpretations), 96% (95% CI, 94%-97%) were concordant, and 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%) were underinterpreted; among DCIS cases (2097 interpretations), 84% (95% CI, 82%-86%) were concordant, 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) were overinterpreted, and 13% (95% CI, 12%-15%) were underinterpreted; among atypia cases (2070 interpretations), 48% (95% CI, 44%-52%) were concordant, 17% (95% CI, 15%-21%) were overinterpreted, and 35% (95% CI, 31%-39%) were underinterpreted; and among benign cases without atypia (2070 interpretations), 87% (95% CI, 85%-89%) were concordant and 13% (95% CI, 11%-15%) were overinterpreted. Disagreement with the reference diagnosis was statistically significantly higher among biopsies from women with higher (n = 122) vs lower (n = 118) breast density on prior mammograms (overall concordance rate, 73% [95% CI, 71%-75%] for higher vs 77% [95% CI, 75%-80%] for lower, P < .001), and among pathologists who interpreted lower weekly case volumes (P < .001) or worked in smaller practices (P = .034) or nonacademic settings (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of pathologists, in which diagnostic interpretation was based on a single breast biopsy slide, overall agreement between the individual pathologists' interpretations and the expert consensus-derived reference diagnoses was 75.3%, with the highest level of concordance for invasive carcinoma and lower levels of concordance for DCIS and atypia. Further research is needed to understand the relationship of these findings with patient management.

Construction and analysis of the NCI-EDRN breast cancer reference set for circulating markers of disease.

BACKGROUND: Many circulating biomarkers have been reported for the diagnosis of breast cancer, but few, if any, have undergone rigorous credentialing using prospective cohorts and blinded evaluation. METHODS: The NCI Early Detection Research Network (EDRN) has created a prospective, multicenter collection of plasma and serum samples from 832 subjects designed to evaluate circulating biomarkers for the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. These samples are available to investigators who wish to evaluate their biomarkers using a set of blinded samples. The breast cancer reference set is composed of blood samples collected using a standard operating procedure at four U.S. medical centers from 2008 to 2010 from women undergoing either tissue diagnosis for breast cancer or routine screening mammography. The reference set contains samples from women with incident invasive cancer (n = 190), carcinoma in situ (n = 55), benign pathology with atypia (n = 63), benign disease with no atypia (n = 231), and women with no evidence of breast disease by screening mammography (BI-RADS 1 or 2, n = 276). Using a subset of plasma samples (n = 505) from the reference set, we analyzed 90 proteins by multiplexed immunoassays for their potential utility as diagnostic markers. RESULTS: We found that none of these markers is useful for distinguishing cancer from benign controls. However, elevated CA-125 does appear to be a candidate marker for estrogen receptor-negative cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Markers that can distinguish benign breast conditions from invasive cancer have not yet been found. IMPACT: Availability of prospectively collected samples should improve future validation efforts.

A framework for evaluating diagnostic discordance in pathology discovered during research studies.

CONTEXT: Little is known about the frequency of discordant diagnoses identified during research. OBJECTIVE: To describe diagnostic discordance identified during research and apply a newly designed research framework for investigating discordance. DESIGN: Breast biopsy cases (N = 407) from registries in Vermont and New Hampshire were independently reviewed by a breast pathology expert. The following research framework was developed to assess those cases: (1) compare the expert review and study database diagnoses, (2) determine the clinical significance of diagnostic discordance, (3) identify and correct data errors and verify the existence of true diagnostic discrepancies, (4) consider the impact of borderline cases, and (5) determine the notification approach for verified disagreements. RESULTS: Initial overall discordance between the original diagnosis recorded in our research database and a breast pathology expert was 32.2% (131 of 407). This was reduced to less than 10% after following the 5-step research framework. Detailed review identified 12 cases (2.9%) with data errors (2 in the underlying pathology registry, 3 with incomplete slides sent for expert review, and 7 with data abstraction errors). After excluding the cases with data errors, 38 cases (9.6%) among the remaining 395 had clinically meaningful discordant diagnoses (κ = 0.82; SE, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.87). Among these 38 cases, 20 (53%) were considered borderline between 2 diagnoses by either the original pathologist or the expert. We elected to notify the pathology registries and facilities regarding discordant diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the types and sources of diagnostic discordance uncovered in research studies may lead to improved scientific data and better patient care.