Stop the Press!
Can negative media reports open up a good opportunity for pathology?
Fedra Pavlou |
Last month, JAMA published a paper that created waves. The study – “Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens,”(1) – cites its primary objective as quantifying “the magnitude of diagnostic disagreement among pathologists compared with a consensus panel.” If you get the sneaking suspicion that the outcome was unlikely to be positive, you’re not wrong; disagreement was reported in around 25 percent of cases.Unsurprisingly, discordance was highest in those cases deemed as “borderline” diagnoses of atypical hyperplasia and DCIS. Though the results are pretty damning on the face of it, the lack of commonality between the study methodology and real-life conditions was not given sufficient attention. For example, the pathologists who took part were unable to solicit a second opinion; not only is that commonly practiced, it’s expected.
Read the full article now
Log in or register to read this article in full and gain access to The Pathologist’s entire content archive. It’s FREE and always will be!
Or register now - it’s free and always will be!
You will benefit from:
- Unlimited access to ALL articles
- News, interviews & opinions from leading industry experts
- Receive print (and PDF) copies of The Pathologist magazine
Or Login via Social Media
By clicking on any of the above social media links, you are agreeing to our Privacy Notice.