Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Sep 10.
Published in final edited form as: Mod Pathol. 2023 Mar 21;36(7):100162. doi: 10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100162

Table 2.

Number (and proportion) of successful interpretations within each of the 4 phases of the interpretive process, as a function of consensus diagnosis and participant experience level

Interpretive phase Expert consensus diagnostic category of the case Trainees Attending pathologists All participants
Detecting critical region Benign without atypia NA (94 [80%]) NA (28 [88%]) NA (122 [81%])
Atypia 232 (98%) 62 (97%) 294 (98%)
Low-grade DCIS 229 (94%) 63 (97%) 292 (94%)
High-grade DCIS 110 (93%) 30 (88%) 140 (92%)
Invasive carcinoma 128 (100%) 36 (100%) 164 (100%)
Recognizing relevance Benign without atypia NA (36 [31%]) NA (12 [38%]) NA (48 [32%])
Atypia 164 (69%) 53 (83%) 217 (72%)
Low-grade DCIS 178 (73%) 57 (88%) 235 (76%)
High-grade DCIS 71 (60%) 25 (74%) 96 (63%)
Invasive carcinoma 103 (80%) 28 (78%) 131 (80%)
Describing features Benign without atypia NA (90 [76%]) NA (27 [84%]) NA (117 [78%])
Atypia 121 (51%) 48 (75%) 169 (56%)
Low-grade DCIS 143 (59%) 49 (75%) 192 (62%)
High-grade DCIS 30 (25%) 24 (71%) 54 (36%)
Invasive carcinoma 118 (92%) 35 (97%) 153 (93%)
Diagnostic decisions Benign without atypia NA (104 [88%]) NA (29 [91%]) NA (133 [89%])
Atypia 52 (22%) 32 (50%) 84 (28%)
Low-grade DCIS 57 (22%) 18 (28%) 75 (24%)
High-grade DCIS 7 (6%) 11 (32%) 18 (12%)
Invasive carcinoma 122 (95%) 36 (100%) 158 (96%)

DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; NA, not applicable.