Discrepancies in the diagnosis of intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast and its management implications: results of a multinational survey

To measure discrepancies in diagnoses and recommendations impacting management of proliferative lesions of the breast, a questionnaire of five problem scenarios was distributed among over 300 practicing pathologists. Of the 230 respondents, 56.5% considered a partial cribriform proliferation within a duct adjacent to unequivocal ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), 37.7% of whom recommended reexcision if it were at a resection margin. Of the 43.5% who diagnosed the partially involved duct as DCIS, 28.0% would not recommend reexcision if the lesion were at a margin. When only five ducts had a partial cribriform proliferation, 35.7% considered it as DCIS, while if ≥20 ducts were so involved, this figure rose to 60.4%. When one duct with a complete cribriform pattern measured 0.5, 1.5, or 4 mm, a diagnosis of DCIS was made by 22.6, 31.3, and 94.8%, respectively. When multiple ducts with flat epithelial atypia were at a margin, 20.9% recommended reexcision. Much of these discrepancies arise from the artificial separation of ADH and low-grade DCIS and emphasize the need for combining these two under the umbrella designation of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (DIN 1) to diminish the impact of different terminologies applied to biologically similar lesions

High and intermediate grade ductal carcinoma in-situ of the breast: a comparison of pathologic features in core biopsies and excisions and an evaluation of core biopsy features that may predict a close or positive margin in the excision

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Low and high-grade ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) are known to be highly disparate by a multitude of parameters, including progression potential, immunophenotype, gene expression profile and DNA ploidy. In this study, we analyzed a group of intermediate and high-grade DCIS cases to determine how well the core biopsy predicts the maximal pathology in the associated excisions, and to determine if there are any core biopsy morphologic features that may predict a close (≤ 0.2 cm) or positive margin in the subsequent excision. Forty-nine consecutive paired specimens [core biopsies with a maximal diagnosis of DCIS, and their corresponding excisions, which included 20 and 29 specimens from mastectomies and breast conserving surgeries respectively] were evaluated in detail. In 5 (10%) of 49 cases, no residual carcinoma was found in the excision. In another 4 cases, the changes were diagnostic only of atypical ductal hyperplasia. There were 4 and 3 respective cases of invasive and microinvasive carcinoma out of the 49 excision specimens, for an overall invasion frequency of 14%. In 28 cases where a sentinel lymph node evaluation was performed, only 1 was found to be positive. Among the 40 cases with at least residual DCIS in the excision, there were 5 cases in which comedo-pattern DCIS was present in the excision but not in the core biopsy, attributed to the lower maximal nuclear grade in the biopsy proliferation in 4 cases and the absence of central necrosis in the 5^th. For the other main histologic patterns, in 8 (20%) of 40 cases, there were more patterns identified in the core biopsy than in the corresponding excision. For the other 32 cases, 100%, 66%, 50%, 33% and 25% of the number of histologic patterns in the excisions were captured in 35%, 5%, 17.5%, 15% and 7.5% of the preceding core biopsies respectively. Therefore, the core biopsy reflected at least half of the non-comedo histologic patterns in 77.5% of cases. In 6(15%) of the 40 cases, the maximum nuclear grade of the excision (grade 3) was higher than that seen in the core biopsy (grade 2). Overall, however, the maximum nuclear grade in the excision was significantly predicted by maximum nuclear grade in the core biopsy (p = 0.028), with a Phi of 0.347, indicating a moderately strong association. At a size threshold of 2.7 cm, there was no significant association between lesional size and core biopsy features. Furthermore, the clear margin width of the cases with lesional size ≤ 2.7 cm (mean 0.69 cm) was not significantly different (p = 0.4) from the cases with lesional size > 2.7 cm (mean 0.56 cm). Finally, among a variety of core biopsy features that were evaluated, including maximum nuclear grade, necrosis, cancerization of lobules, number of tissue cores with DCIS, number of DCIS ducts per tissue core, total DCIS ducts, or comedo-pattern, only necrosis was significantly associated with a positive or close (≤ 0.2 cm) margin on multivariate analysis (Phi of 0.350). It is concluded that a significant change [to invasive disease (14%) or to no residual disease (10%)] is seen in approximately 24% of excisions that follow a core biopsy diagnosis of intermediate or high-grade DCIS. Core biopsy features are of limited value in predicting a close or positive margin in these lesions.</p

Human Papillomavirus Testing And Reporting Rates In 2012: Results Of A College Of American Pathologists National Survey

Context. - College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys are used to establish national benchmarks for laboratory parameters. Objective. - To evaluate changes in laboratory human papillomavirus (HPV) testing patterns in laboratories incorporating HPV testing with Papanicolaou tests in 2012. Design. - Data were analyzed from the CAP HPV Supplemental Questionnaire distributed to 1771 laboratories participating in either CAP HPV or CAP Papanicolaou proficiency testing in 2013. Results. - A total of 1022 laboratories (58%) responded. There were more high-risk (HR) HPV tests performed per institution as compared to previous surveys. There were more HPV tests performed within an institution as compared to previous surveys. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) remains the most common method (42.4%, 239 of 564); Cervista and cobas methods are used in 37.2% (210 of 564) and 14.9% (84 of 564) of laboratories, respectively. Human papillomavirus testing is offered as a reflex test after a Papanicolaou test result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) in 89.6% of laboratories (476 of 531); as a cotest for women aged 30 years and older in 60.3% (404 of 531); as reflex testing after atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) in 42.7% (320 of 531); and as reflex testing after atypical glandular cells (AGC) in 27.3% (145 of 531). The HPV-positive rates for ASC-US and ASC-H were similar in 2012 and 2006. Cervista (49.2%, 88 of 179) and Roche cobas (27.4%, 49 of 179) are the most common methods used for genotyping. Most laboratories use the CAP Human Papillomavirus for Cytology Program for proficiency testing. Conclusions. - There was an increase in annual volume of HR-HPV testing with a shift toward in-house HR-HPV testing. Genotyping volumes also increased. HC2 and Cervista are most commonly used, with an increasing volume of Roche cobas testing. The most common indication for HPV testing among all laboratories was ASC-US reflex testing, but an increase in HPV cotesting was observed. The data provide an update into persisting and newer trends in HPV testing practices

Human Papillomavirus Genotyping Testing Practice In 2014: Results Of A College Of American Pathologists National Survey

Context. - College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys are used to establish national benchmarks for laboratories. Objective. - To investigate human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping testing practice patterns in laboratories in 2014. Design. - Data were analyzed from the CAP HPV Genotyping Practices Supplemental Questionnaire distributed to 749 laboratories participating in the CAP Human Papillomavirus (High Risk) for Cytology Program. Results. - Six hundred four of 749 laboratories (80.6%) responded to the survey. More laboratories offered HPV genotyping testing and performed in-house HPV genotyping testing as compared to previous surveys. The Roche cobas HPV test was the most commonly used genotyping method (37.0%; 160 of 433), followed by Hologic Aptima HPV16 18/45 (26.1%; 113 of 433) and Hologic Cervista HPV16/18 (14.3%; 62 of 433). Most laboratories (287 of 399; 71.9%) offered HPV genotyping for high-risk HPV cases regardless of Papanicolaou (Pap) test results and patient age; this pattern was more common in laboratories using cobas. The remaining laboratories specifically offered testing to women with a negative Pap test result at age 30 years and older (65.2%, 73 of 112) or all ages (37.5%, 42 of 112). The median reporting rates of HPV16 and/or HPV18 positivity were 20.6%, 25.7%, 21.1%, and 57.4% for women with positive high-risk HPV adjunctive negative Pap results, atypical squamous cells of undermined significance, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and high-grade squamous lesion, respectively. Conclusions. - Human papillomavirus genotyping testing has increased. Roche cobas and Hologic Aptima genotype methods were the most common, and laboratories using cobas usually offered genotyping regardless of Pap test result and age. The data provide a baseline and trend of HPV genotyping test practices in 2014

False-Negative Interpretation Of Adenocarcinoma In Situ In The College Of American Pathologists Gynecologic Pap Education Program

Context: Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) is difficult to correctly interpret on Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology slides and false-negative interpretations of AIS can cause significant problems in daily practice. Objective: To investigate the false-negative interpretation rate of AIS and the factors related to false-negative interpretation through responses in an educational environment. Design: We retrospectively evaluated 11 337 responses in the PAP Education Program (PAP-Edu) from 173 AIS slides from 2011 to 2015. The false-negative interpretation rate, most common false-negative interpretations, and related other factors were evaluated. Results: The overall false-negative rate was 6.9% (784 of 11 337). Respondents correctly interpreted AIS 50.0% (5667 of 11 337) of the time; high-grade intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and malignancies (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and other carcinomas) accounted for 42.7% (4842 of 11 337) and low-grade intraepithelial lesion accounted for 0.4% (44 of 11 337) of responses. Overall, 92.7% (10 509 of 11 337) of responses were HSIL and above. Among 784 false-negative responses, negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy was the most common (61.5% [482 of 784]), followed by reparative changes (24.1% [189 of 784]) and atrophic vaginitis (7.7% [60 of 784]). Overall, pathologists\u27 responses showed a significantly higher false-negative rate than cytotechnolo-gists\u27 responses (8.3%, 403 of 4835 versus 5.7%, 275 of 4816; P,.001). The false-negative response rates were not statistically different among preparation types. Conclusions: The low correct interpretation rate and higher false-negative rate for AIS demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting AIS on Pap cytology, which may cause clinical consequences. The higher false-negative rate with pathologists than with cytotechnologists suggests cyto-technologists\u27 higher screening sensitivity for AIS or cautious interpretation to avoid false-positive results by pathologists

Misinterpretation Rates Of High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion In The College Of American Pathologists Gynecologic Pap Education And Pap Proficiency Test Program

Context. - Misinterpretation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) is an important problem in daily practice and in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) PAP Proficiency Test (PAP-PT). Objective. - To investigate factors related to misinterpretation of HSIL through responses in a proficiency test versus an educational environment. Design. - We retrospectively evaluated 28 000 responses in the PAP Education Program (PAP-Edu) and 59 140 responses in PAP-PT from 1147 field-validated HSIL slides from 2007 to 2014. The related factors, such as program types, preparation types, participant types, and program years, were evaluated. Results. - Overall, 4.0% (2379 of 59 140) of responses for HSIL slides from PAP-PT were misinterpreted as either low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or negative, significantly more than those from PAP-Edu (3.2%; 898 of 28 000). However, the false-negative rate (misinterpreted as negative) was 0.9% (519 of 59 140) for PAP-PT, lower than that for PAP-Edu (1.0%; 266 of 28 000). The misinterpretation rates in PAP-PT trended down with time. Misinterpretation rates did not vary significantly by preparation methods. The misinterpretation rate for HSIL in the pathologists\u27 responses was lower than that in cytotechnologists\u27 responses in PAP-PT. More HSIL was misinterpreted as LSIL than as benign in both programs. Cytotechnologists interpreted HSIL as LSIL twice as much as pathologists. The most common false-negative misinterpretations were negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy and reparative change. Conclusions. - The higher LSIL misinterpretation rate by cytotechnologists may be related to the differences in reporting responsibilities and proficiency test grading criteria. The trend of gradually decreasing misinterpretation rates of a reference diagnosis of HSIL in the PAP-PT program may be related to higher test-taking confidence and better preparation through educational programs. The fact that pathologists performed better than cytotechnologists in PAP-PT, but not in PAP-Edu, may reflect a heightened approach and attentiveness in the test-taking environment for pathologists