↓ Skip to main content

Overinterpretation is common in pathological diagnosis of appendix cancer during patient referral for oncologic care

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Overinterpretation is common in pathological diagnosis of appendix cancer during patient referral for oncologic care
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0179216
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark A. Valasek, Irene Thung, Esha Gollapalle, Alexey A. Hodkoff, Kaitlyn J. Kelly, Joel M. Baumgartner, Vera Vavinskaya, Grace Y. Lin, Ann P. Tipps, Mojgan V. Hosseini, Andrew M. Lowy

Abstract

Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) and appendiceal adenocarcinoma are known to cause the majority of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP, i.e. mucinous ascites); however, recognition and proper classification of these neoplasms can be difficult despite established diagnostic criteria. To determine the pathological diagnostic concordance for appendix neoplasia and related lesions during patient referral to an academic medical center specialized in treating patients with PMP. The anatomic pathology laboratory information system was searched to identify cases over a two-year period containing appendix specimens with mucinous neoplasia evaluated by an outside pathology group and by in-house slide review at a single large academic medical center during patient referral. 161 cases containing appendix specimens were identified over this period. Forty-six of 161 cases (28.6%) contained appendiceal primary neoplasia or lesions. Of these, the originating pathologist diagnosed 23 cases (50%) as adenocarcinoma and 23 cases (50%) as LAMN; however, the reference pathologist diagnosed 29 cases (63.0%) as LAMN, 13 cases (28.3%) as adenocarcinoma, and 4 cases (8.7%) as ruptured simple mucocele. Importantly, for cases in which the originating pathologist rendered a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, the reference pathologist rendered a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma (56.5%, 13 of 23), LAMN (39.1%, 9 of 23), or simple mucocele (4.3%, 1 of 23). The overall diagnostic concordance rate for these major classifications was 71.7% (33 of 46) with an unweighted observed kappa value of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.27-0.69), consistent with moderate interobserver agreement. All of the observed discordance (28.3%) for major classifications could be attributed to over-interpretation. In addition, the majority of LAMN cases (65.5%) had potential diagnostic deficiencies including over-interpretation as adenocarcinoma and lacking or discordant risk stratification (i.e. documentation of extra-appendiceal neoplastic epithelium). Appendiceal mucinous lesions remain a difficult area for appropriate pathological classification with substantial discordance due to over-interpretation in this study. The findings highlight the critical need for recognition and application of diagnostic criteria regarding these tumors. Recently published consensus guidelines and a checklist provided herein may help facilitate improvement of diagnostic concordance and thereby reduce over-interpretation and potential overtreatment. Further studies are needed to determine the extent of this phenomenon and its potential clinical impact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2023.
All research outputs
#518,326
of 24,416,081 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#7,242
of 210,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,351
of 321,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#156
of 4,225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,416,081 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.