Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies

Abstract

Aims Second opinions in pathology improve patient safety by reducing diagnostic errors, leading to more appropriate clinical treatment decisions. Little objective data are available regarding the factors triggering a request for second opinion despite second opinion consultations being part of the diagnostic system of pathology. Therefore we sought to assess breast biopsy cases and interpreting pathologists characteristics associated with second opinion requests. Methods Collected pathologist surveys and their interpretations of 60 test set cases were used to explore the relationships between case characteristics, pathologist characteristics and case perceptions, and requests for second opinions. Data were evaluated by logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. Results 115 pathologists provided 6900 assessments; pathologists requested second opinions on 70% (4827/6900) of their assessments 36% (1731/4827) of these would not have been required by policy. All associations between case characteristics and requesting second opinions were statistically significant, including diagnostic category, breast density, biopsy type, and number of diagnoses noted per case. Exclusive of institutional policies, pathologists wanted second opinions most frequently for atypia (66%) and least frequently for invasive cancer (20%). Second opinion rates were higher when the pathologist had lower assessment confidence, in cases with higher perceived difficulty, and cases with borderline diagnoses. Conclusions Pathologists request second opinions for challenging cases, particularly those with atypia, high breast density, core needle biopsies, or many co-existing diagnoses. Further studies should evaluate whether the case characteristics identified in this study could be used as clinical criteria to prompt system-level strategies for mandating second opinions.

Mammographic density is a potential predictive marker of pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

“…Since only eight identified patients declined study participation, we estimate this potential bias as minimal. Although high MD it is not stated as an obstacle in guidelines concerning pathological evaluation after NACT for BC [51], a few studies indicate that pathological evaluation is more difficult in a high MD specimen [52, 53]. We expect this potential bias to be negligible in our results.…”

Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast core biopsies on secondary review over a 1‐year period at an Australian tertiary hospital

“…Allison et al in their analysis of the meetings of an expert review panel broadly identified root causes of disagreement as being related to the pathologist, diagnostic coding, methodology, or specimen 19 . Furthermore, Geller et al found increased requests for second opinions were associated with atypia (ADH or ADH in a papilloma), increased mammographic breast density seen radiologically prior to biopsy, or where many co‐existing histological diagnoses were present 20 …”

Discrepância do laudo entre anatomopatologistas

“…[8][9][10][11] Um estudo americano com 115 patologistas incumbidos de analisar biopsias mamarias mostrou que os mesmos solicitaram segunda opinião em 70% dos seus laudos. 12 A mesma postura foi vista com lesões suspeitas para melanoma num relato da sociedade americana de dermatologia; os patologistas solicitaram voluntariamente a segunda opinião para a formulação de diagnósticos em 85% dos casos. Alguns centros de patologia já possuem políticas internas que direcionam o patologista para uma segunda opinião obrigatória dependendo do conteúdo do laudo.…”