Skip Navigation



Annals of Oncology Advance Access published online on July 21, 2009

Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp273
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bueno-de-Mesquita, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by van de Vijver, M. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bueno-de-Mesquita, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by van de Vijver, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

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-Mesquita1, D. S. A. Nuyten2, J. Wesseling1, H. van Tinteren3, S. C. Linn4 and M. J. van de Vijver1,5,*

1 Department of Pathology
2 Department of Radiation Oncology
3 Department of Biometrics
4 Division of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute
5 Department of Pathology, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

* Correspondence to: Prof. M. J. van de Vijver, Department of Pathology, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: +31-20-5664100; Fax: +31-20-566-9523; E-mail: m.j.vandevijver{at}amc.uva.nl

Background: It is well known that there is considerable inter-observer variability in assessment of the pathological parameters that are used to select node-negative breast cancer patients for adjuvant systemic treatment. There are only limited data available as to in how many patients this leads to differences in treatment decisions.

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.

adjuvant systemic treatment, breast cancer, inter-observer agreement, inter-observer variation, pathological examination, prognostic index

Received for publication January 23, 2009. Revision received April 8, 2009. Accepted for publication April 15, 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.