Table 2.
Correlation between histological diagnosis on FCM images and corresponding HES slides.
| Pathologist 1 FCM Image Interpretation |
Pathologist 2 FCM Image Interpretation |
Total | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Benign | Atypical/Suspicious | DCIS | IC | Normal | Benign | Atypical/Suspicious | DCIS | IC | NI | |||
| Histological type on definitive histology * | normal | 2 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 |
| benign | 1 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 17 | ||
| atypical/ suspicious |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| DCIS | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | 1 | |
| IC | - | - | - | - | 29 | - | - | - | - | 29 | - | 29 | |
| Total | 3 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 30 | 2 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 29 | 1 | 49 * | |
* One case of papillary carcinoma could not be classified as in situ or invasive on biopsy at definitive histology. It was diagnosed as papillary carcinoma by PT1 and DCIS by PT2. NI: biopsy not interpreted.