↓ Skip to main content

Interobserver variation in the diagnosis of fibroepithelial lesions of the breast: a multicentre audit by digital pathology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Pathology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Interobserver variation in the diagnosis of fibroepithelial lesions of the breast: a multicentre audit by digital pathology
Published in
Journal of Clinical Pathology, February 2018
DOI 10.1136/jclinpath-2017-204977
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin F Dessauvagie, Andrew H S Lee, Katie Meehan, Anju Nijhawan, Puay Hoon Tan, Jeremy Thomas, Bibiana Tie, Darren Treanor, Seemeen Umar, Andrew M Hanby, Rebecca Millican-Slater

Abstract

Fibroepithelial lesions (FELs) of the breast span a morphological continuum including lesions where distinction between cellular fibroadenoma (FA) and benign phyllodes tumour (PT) is difficult. The distinction is clinically important with FAs managed conservatively while equivocal lesions and PTs are managed with surgery. We sought to audit core biopsy diagnoses of equivocal FELs by digital pathology and to investigate whether digital point counting is useful in clarifying FEL diagnoses. Scanned slide images from cores and subsequent excisions of 69 equivocal FELs were examined in a multicentre audit by eight pathologists to determine the agreement and accuracy of core needle biopsy (CNB) diagnoses and by digital point counting of stromal cellularity and expansion to determine if classification could be improved. Interobserver variation was high on CNB with a unanimous diagnosis from all pathologists in only eight cases of FA, diagnoses of both FA and PT on the same CNB in 15 and a 'weak' mean kappa agreement between pathologists (k=0.36). 'Moderate' agreement was observed on CNBs among breast specialists (k=0.44) and on excision samples (k=0.49). Up to 23% of lesions confidently diagnosed as FA on CNB were PT on excision and up to 30% of lesions confidently diagnosed as PT on CNB were FA on excision. Digital point counting did not aid in the classification of FELs. Accurate and reproducible diagnosis of equivocal FELs is difficult, particularly on CNB, resulting in poor interobserver agreement and suboptimal accuracy. Given the diagnostic difficulty, and surgical implications, equivocal FELs should be reported in consultation with experienced breast pathologists as a small number of benign FAs can be selected out from equivocal lesions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Master 3 8%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 17 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 36%
Computer Science 4 11%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,004,725
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#2,494
of 3,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,034
of 446,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Pathology
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.