Microcalcifications of the breast: a mammographic-histologic correlation study using a newly designed Path/Rad Tissue Tray

Error Reduction and Diagnostic Concordance in Breast Pathology

Errors in anatomic pathology can result in patients receiving inappropriate treatment and poor patient outcomes. Policies and procedures are necessary to decrease error and improve diagnostic concordance. Breast pathology may be more prone to diagnostic errors than other surgical pathology subspecialties due to inherit borderline diagnostic categories such as atypical ductal hyperplasia and low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Mandatory secondary review of internal and outside referral cases before treatment is effective in reducing diagnostic errors and improving concordance. Assessment of error through amendment/addendum tracking, implementing an incident reporting system, and multidisciplinary tumor boards can establish procedures to prevent future error.

Factors affecting the concordance of radiologic and pathologic tumor size in breast carcinoma

Background

Radiologic assessment of tumor size is an integral part of the work-up for breast carcinoma. With improved radiologic equipment, surgical decision relies profoundly upon radiologic/clinical stage. We wanted to see the concordance between radiologic and pathologic tumor size to infer how accurate radiologic/clinical staging is.

Materials and methods

The surgical pathology and ultrasonography reports of patients with breast carcinoma were reviewed. Data were collected for 406 cases. Concordance was defined as a size difference within ±2 mm.

Results

The difference between radiologic and pathologic tumor size was within ±2 mm in 40.4% cases. The mean radiologic size was 1.73 ± 1.06 cm. The mean pathologic size was 1.84 ± 1.24 cm. A paired t-test showed a significant mean difference between radiologic and pathologic measurements (0.12 ± 1.03 cm, p = 0.03). Despite the size difference, stage classification was the same in 59.9% of cases. Radiologic size overestimated stage in 14.5% of cases and underestimated stage in 25.6% of cases. The concordance rate was significantly higher for tumors ≤2 cm (pT1) (51.1%) as compared to those greater than 2 cm (≥pT2) (19.7%) (p < 0.0001). Significantly more lumpectomy specimens (47.5%) had concordance when compared to mastectomy specimens (29.8%) (p < 0.0001). Invasive ductal carcinoma had better concordance compared to other tumors (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Mean pathologic tumor size was significantly different from mean radiologic tumor size. Concordance was in just over 40% of cases and the stage classification was the same in about 60% of cases only. Therefore, surgical decision of lumpectomy versus mastectomy based on radiologic tumor size may not always be accurate.

Integrating pathology and radiology disciplines: an emerging opportunity?

Pathology and radiology form the core of cancer diagnosis, yet the workflows of both specialties remain ad hoc and occur in separate "silos," with no direct linkage between their case accessioning and/or reporting systems, even when both departments belong to the same host institution. Because both radiologists' and pathologists' data are essential to making correct diagnoses and appropriate patient management and treatment decisions, this isolation of radiology and pathology workflows can be detrimental to the quality and outcomes of patient care. These detrimental effects underscore the need for pathology and radiology workflow integration and for systems that facilitate the synthesis of all data produced by both specialties. With the enormous technological advances currently occurring in both fields, the opportunity has emerged to develop an integrated diagnostic reporting system that supports both specialties and, therefore, improves the overall quality of patient care.