TY - JOUR
T1 - Significant inter- and intra-laboratory variation in grading of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast
T2 - a nationwide study of 4901 patients in the Netherlands
AU - van Dooijeweert, Carmen
AU - van Diest, Paul J.
AU - Willems, Stefan M.
AU - Kuijpers, Chantal C.H.J.
AU - Overbeek, Lucy I.H.
AU - Deckers, Ivette A.G.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Dr. C.H.M. van Deurzen, Dr. H.J. van Slooten, Dr. J. Wesseling, and Dr. P.J. Westenend for their advice and for their involvement in the project-steering-group and Ms. S. Raman for critically reviewing this paper. The authors also thank all pathology laboratories that participated in this study and the registration team of the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL) for the collection of data for the Netherlands Cancer Registry as well as IKNL staff for scientific advice.
Funding Information:
Funding This study was funded by the Quality Foundation of the Dutch Association of Medical Specialists (SKMS). The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of this study, nor did it have a role in the review or approval of the manuscript and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, The Author(s).
PY - 2019/4
Y1 - 2019/4
N2 - Purpose: A considerable part of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions may never progress into invasive breast cancer. However, standard treatment consists of surgical excision. Trials aim to identify a subgroup of low-risk DCIS patients that can safely forgo surgical treatment based on histologic grade, which highlights the importance of accurate grading. Using real-life nationwide data, we aimed to create insight and awareness in grading variation of DCIS in daily clinical practice. Methods: All synoptic pathology reports of pure DCIS resection specimens between 2013 and 2016 were retrieved from PALGA, the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry. Absolute differences in proportions of grade I-III were visualized using funnel plots. Multivariable analysis was performed by logistic regression to correct for case-mix, providing odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for high-grade (III) versus low-grade (I–II) DCIS. Results: 4952 DCIS reports from 36 laboratories were included, of which 12.5% were reported as grade I (range 6.1–24.4%), 39.5% as grade II (18.2–57.6%), and 48.0% as grade III (30.2–72.7%). After correction for case-mix, 14 laboratories (38.9%) reported a significantly lower (n = 4) or higher (n = 10) proportion of high-grade DCIS than the reference laboratory. Adjusted ORs (95%CI) ranged from 0.52 (0.31–0.87) to 3.83 (1.42–10.39). Significant grading differences were also observed among pathologists within laboratories. Conclusion: In this cohort of 4901 patients, we observed substantial inter- and intra-laboratory variation in DCIS grading, not explained by differences in case-mix. Therefore, there is an urgent need for nationwide standardization of grading practices, especially since the future management of DCIS may alter significantly depending on histologic grade.
AB - Purpose: A considerable part of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions may never progress into invasive breast cancer. However, standard treatment consists of surgical excision. Trials aim to identify a subgroup of low-risk DCIS patients that can safely forgo surgical treatment based on histologic grade, which highlights the importance of accurate grading. Using real-life nationwide data, we aimed to create insight and awareness in grading variation of DCIS in daily clinical practice. Methods: All synoptic pathology reports of pure DCIS resection specimens between 2013 and 2016 were retrieved from PALGA, the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry. Absolute differences in proportions of grade I-III were visualized using funnel plots. Multivariable analysis was performed by logistic regression to correct for case-mix, providing odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for high-grade (III) versus low-grade (I–II) DCIS. Results: 4952 DCIS reports from 36 laboratories were included, of which 12.5% were reported as grade I (range 6.1–24.4%), 39.5% as grade II (18.2–57.6%), and 48.0% as grade III (30.2–72.7%). After correction for case-mix, 14 laboratories (38.9%) reported a significantly lower (n = 4) or higher (n = 10) proportion of high-grade DCIS than the reference laboratory. Adjusted ORs (95%CI) ranged from 0.52 (0.31–0.87) to 3.83 (1.42–10.39). Significant grading differences were also observed among pathologists within laboratories. Conclusion: In this cohort of 4901 patients, we observed substantial inter- and intra-laboratory variation in DCIS grading, not explained by differences in case-mix. Therefore, there is an urgent need for nationwide standardization of grading practices, especially since the future management of DCIS may alter significantly depending on histologic grade.
KW - DCIS
KW - Ductal carcinoma in situ
KW - Histologic grade
KW - PALGA
KW - Pathology
KW - Prognostic factor
KW - Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/pathology
KW - Breast Neoplasms/pathology
KW - Humans
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Logistic Models
KW - Netherlands
KW - Neoplasm Grading
KW - Female
KW - Registries
KW - Aged
KW - Laboratories/standards
KW - Odds Ratio
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058398832&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10549-018-05082-y
DO - 10.1007/s10549-018-05082-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 30539380
AN - SCOPUS:85058398832
SN - 0167-6806
VL - 174
SP - 479
EP - 488
JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
IS - 2
ER -