Table 2.

Characteristics of Participating Pathologists (N=115)

Demographics	No. (%)
Age at survey, y
33–39	16 (13.9)
40–49	41 (35.7)
50–59	42 (36.5)
≥60	16 (13.9)
Sex
Men	69 (60.0)
Women	46 (40.0)
State of clinical practice
Alaska	4 (3.5)
Maine	11 (9.6)
Minnesota	19 (16.5)
New Hampshire	4 (3.5)
New Mexico	4 (3.5)
Oregon	15 (13.0)
Vermont	9 (7.8)
Washington	49 (42.6)
Clinical Practice and Breast Pathology Expertise
Laboratory group practice size
<10 pathologists	68 (59.1)
≥10 pathologists	47 (40.9)
Fellowship training in breast pathology
No	109 (94.8)
Yes	6 (5.2)
Affiliated with an academic medical center
No	87 (75.7)
Yes, adjunct/affiliated clinical faculty	17 (14.8)
Yes, primary appointment	11 (9.6)
Considered an expert in breast pathology by colleagues
No	90 (78.3)
Yes	25 (21.7)
Years interpreting breast pathology cases (not including residency/fellowship training)
0–4	22 (19.1)
5–9	23 (20.0)
10–19	34 (29.6)
≥20	36 (31.3)
Percentage of breast specimen interpretation in caseload
0–9	59 (51.3)
10–24	45 (39.1)
25–49	8 (7.0)
50–74	2 (1.7)
≥75	1 (0.9)
No. of breast cases interpreted per week
0–4	31 (27.0)
5–9	44 (38.3)
10–19	31 (27.0)
20–29	4 (3.5)
30–39	3 (2.6)
40–49	1 (0.9)
≥50	1 (0.9)
Impressions About Breast Pathology
Confidence in assessments of breast cases
1 (Very confident)	14 (12.2)
2	66 (57.4)
3	27 (23.5)
4	8 (7.0)
5	0
6 (Not confident at all)	0
Challenge of interpreting breast cases
1 (Very easy)	1 (0.9)
2	13 (11.3)
3	43 (37.4)
4	44 (38.3)
5	14 (12.2)
6 (Very challenging)	0
More nervous interpreting breast pathology than other types of pathology
1 (Strongly disagree)	13 (11.3)
2	35 (30.4)
3	16 (13.9)
4	28 (24.3)
5	20 (17.4)
6 (Strongly agree)	3 (2.6)
Enjoys interpreting breast pathology
1 (Strongly disagree)	0
2	9 (7.8)
3	13 (11.3)
4	27 (23.5)
5	46 (40.0)
6 (Strongly agree)	20 (17.4)