This study shows that reproductive factors and BMI are most clearly associated with hormone receptor-positive tumors and suggest that triple-negative or CBP tumors may have distinct etiology.

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). Consensus ReferenceDiagnosis Pathologist Interpretation vs Consensus-Derived Reference Diagnosis, % (95% CI) No. ofInterpretations Overall ConcordanceRate OverinterpretationRate UnderinterpretationRate Benign without atypia 2070 87 (85–89) 13 (11–15) Atypia 2070 48 (44–52) 17 (15–21) 35 (31–39) DCIS 2097 84 (82–86) 3 (2–4) 13 (12–15) Invasive carcinoma 663 96 (94–97) 4 (3–6) 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.

Background Previous small studies found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast tumors differ in their pathology. Analysis of larger datasets of mutation carriers should allow further tumor characterization. Methods We used data from 4,325 BRCA1 and 2,568 BRCA2 mutation carriers to analyze the pathology of invasive breast, ovarian and contralateral breast cancers. Results There was strong evidence that the proportion of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast tumors decreased with age at diagnosis among BRCA1 (p-trend=1.2×10−5) but increased with age at diagnosis among BRCA2 carriers (p-trend=6.8×10−6). The proportion of triple negative tumors decreased with age at diagnosis in BRCA1 carriers but increased with age at diagnosis of BRCA2 carriers. In both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, ER-negative tumors were of higher histological grade than ER-positive tumors (Grade 3 vs. Grade 1, p=1.2×10−13 for BRCA1 and p=0.001 for BRCA2). ER and progesterone receptor (PR) expression were independently associated with mutation carrier status (ER-positive odds ratio (OR) for BRCA2=9.4, 95%CI:7.0-12.6 and PR-positive OR=1.7, 95%CI:1.3-2.3, under joint analysis). Lobular tumors were more likely to be BRCA2-related (OR for BRCA2=3.3, 95%CI:2.4-4.4, p=4.4×10−14), and medullary tumors BRCA1-related (OR for BRCA2=0.25, 95%CI:0.18-0.35, p=2.3×10−15). ER-status of the first breast cancer was predictive of ER-status of asynchronous contralateral breast cancer (p=0.0004 for BRCA1; p=0.002 for BRCA2). There were no significant differences in ovarian cancer morphology between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (serous:67%; mucinous:1%; endometriod:12%; clear-cell:2%). Conclusions/Impact Pathology characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors may be useful for improving risk prediction algorithms and informing clinical strategies for screening and prophylaxis.