Related Experiment Video For breast pathology
Updated: Apr 23, 2026
Author Spotlight: Investigating Immune Cell Dynamics in the Tumor Microenvironment — Challenges and Innovations in Cancer Prognosis
Published on: April 12, 2024
Breast pathology second review identifies clinically significant discrepancies in over 10% of patients
Laila Khazai1, Lavinia P Middleton, Nazli Goktepe
1Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Background:
Patients seeking a second opinion or continuation of care at our hospital will routinely have their pathology reviewed prior to initiating treatment. To assess the relevance of this review in patients with breast cancer, we compared original pathology reports submitted during the referral with second-review reports issued at our institution. We also assessed compliance with College of American Pathologists (CAP) requirements regarding inclusion of scientifically validated data elements (SVDE) in these pathology reports.
Methods:
We retrospectively studied all 1,970 breast pathology referral cases reviewed during one calendar year. The variables studied were histologic classification; tumor grade, necrosis, size, margin status, lymphatic/vascular invasion, dermal involvement, and biomarker profile (ER, PR, and Her-2). Each variable was rated as "agree," "disagree," "missing information," or "not applicable."
Results:
A significant discrepancy, defined as a disagreement that affected patient care, was found in 226 cases (11.47%). Additionally, in 418 resection cases (31.6%), some CAP-checklist specific required information was missing. The most common areas of significant discrepancy were histologic category (66 cases; 33%) and biomarker reporting (50 cases; 25%). The most problematic diagnostic categories were intraductal lesions, lobular carcinoma, metaplastic carcinomas, and phyllodes tumors. Most disagreements in the biomarker-profile category were interpretive, but in 20% of discrepant cases, findings were supported by repeat immunohistochemical analysis.
Conclusions:
Our results confirm the value and utility of obtaining a second opinion to optimize patient care. Changes in diagnoses obtained after second review should be interpreted and reported in a collaborative fashion, noting the benefit of a review from second pair of experienced eyes. Our results support the use of second review to ensure inclusion of CAP-required data elements in pathology reports.
