Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment

  • J. M. Bueno-de-Mesquita
  • , D. S. A. Nuyten
  • , J. Wesseling
  • , H. van Tinteren
  • , S. C. Linn
  • , M. J. van de Vijver

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Methods: Clinical and pathological data of 694 patients <61 years with primary unilateral T1-4N0M0 breast cancer were analysed. Grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status were first assessed locally; subsequent central re-evaluation of these parameters was carried out. Clinicopathological low or high risk was assessed using national Dutch guidelines and the Adjuvant! Online (www.adjuvantonline.com). Results: The local pathological examination was discordant with central review for grade, ER and HER2 in 28% (kappa 0.56; grade 2 tumours 35% discordant), 5% (kappa 0.85) and 4% (kappa 0.81) of patients, respectively. If clinical risk were assessed based on Dutch guidelines or Adjuvant! Online, respectively, 15% (one of seven patients; kappa 0.70) or 8% (kappa 0.83) of patients would have been assigned to a different clinical risk group. Conclusion: Inter-observer variation in pathological examination of breast carcinomas results in significant differences in grade, ER status, HER2 status, clinicopathological risk and subsequently in adjuvant systemic treatment advice
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)40-47
JournalAnnals of oncology
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this