Table 2.
Participant diagnosis of ADH in agreement with expert consensus diagnosis of ADH? | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lesion Features | Number of cases | Number of assessments | Agree N % | Disagree N % | OR (CI) | P-valuea |
Total | 72 | 2070 (100%) | 990 (48%) | 1080 (52%) | ||
Papillary lesion? | <.001 | |||||
No | 58 | 1667 (100%) | 765 (46%) | 902 (54%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 14 | 403 (100%) | 225 (56%) | 178 (44%) | 1.49 (1.19, 1.87) | |
Architecture pattern present in lesion: | <.001 | |||||
Cribriform | 55 | 1579 (100%) | 801 (51%) | 778 (49%) | 1.0 | |
Flat | 3 | 89 (100%) | 47 (53%) | 42 (47%) | 1.09 (0.69, 1.71) | |
Micro-papillary | 9 | 259 (100%) | 103 (40%) | 156 (60%) | 0.64 (0.50, 0.83) | |
Solid | 5 | 143 (100%) | 39 (27%) | 104 (73%) | 0.36 (0.25, 0.54) | |
Specimen Type: | 0.009 | |||||
Core | 48 | 1381 (100%) | 685 (50%) | 696 (50%) | 1.0 | |
Excision | 24 | 689 (100%) | 305 (44%) | 384 (56%) | 0.81 (0.69, 0.95) | |
Cytologic monotony in lesion: | 0.013 | |||||
Very monotonous | 52 | 1495 (100%) | 742 (50%) | 753 (50%) | 1.0 | |
Not monotonous or Borderline | 20 | 575 (100%) | 248 (43%) | 327 (57%) | 0.77 (0.63, 0.95) | |
Diagnostic area obvious on low power?b: | 0.020 | |||||
No | 15 | 431 (100%) | 193 (45%) | 238 (55%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 48 | 1381 (100%) | 687 (50%) | 694 (50%) | 1.22 (1.00, 1.49) | |
Borderline | 8 | 229 (100%) | 96 (42%) | 133 (58%) | 0.89 (0.65, 1.22) | |
Number of foci with atypia: | 0.041 | |||||
1–2 foci | 21 | 601 (100%) | 264 (44%) | 337 (56%) | 1.0 | |
3–5 foci | 29 | 834 (100%) | 420 (50%) | 414 (50%) | 1.30 (1.06, 1.58) | |
6+ foci | 22 | 635 (100%) | 306 (48%) | 329 (52%) | 1.19 (0.94, 1.49) | |
Number regions of interest (ROI) to screenb: | 0.26 | |||||
1–2 foci | 30 | 859 (100%) | 420 (49%) | 439 (51%) | 1.0 | |
3–5 foci | 30 | 869 (100%) | 417 (48%) | 452 (52%) | 0.96 (0.82, 1.14) | |
>5 foci | 11 | 313 (100%) | 138 (44%) | 175 (56%) | 0.82 (0.65, 1.04) | |
Distracting Areas? | 0.19 | |||||
No | 53 | 1528 (100%) | 743 (49%) | 785 (51%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 19 | 542 (100%) | 247 (46%) | 295 (54%) | 0.88 (0.74, 1.06) | |
Other diagnosis in Ddx or within the lesionb? | 0.20 | |||||
No | 23 | 662 (100%) | 329 (50%) | 333 (50%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 48 | 1379 (100%) | 647 (47%) | 732 (53%) | 0.89 (0.75, 1.06) | |
Number of areas with atypiab: | 0.52 | |||||
1 | 46 | 1324 (100%) | 620 (47%) | 704 (53%) | 1.0 | |
2 | 17 | 493 (100%) | 246 (50%) | 247 (50%) | 1.13 (0.90, 1.41) | |
3+ | 7 | 199 (100%) | 99 (50%) | 100 (50%) | 1.12 (0.82, 1.55) | |
Largest area with atypiab: | 0.26 | |||||
<2.5 | 34 | 979 (100%) | 460 (47%) | 519 (53%) | 1.0 | |
≥2.5 | 37 | 1062 (100%) | 524 (49%) | 538 (51%) | 1.10 (0.93, 1.29) | |
Largest single discrete focus: | 0.52 | |||||
≤2mm | 58 | 1665 (100%) | 791 (48%) | 874 (52%) | 1.0 | |
> 2mm | 14 | 405 (100%) | 199 (49%) | 206 (51%) | 1.07 (0.87, 1.30) | |
Apocrine cytology? | 0.14 | |||||
No | 67 | 1927 (100%) | 914 (47%) | 1013 (53%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 5 | 143 (100%) | 76 (53%) | 67 (47%) | 1.26 (0.93, 1.70) | |
Hyperchromatic nuclei? | 0.19 | |||||
No | 57 | 1631 (100%) | 793 (49%) | 838 (51%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 15 | 439 (100%) | 197 (45%) | 242 (55%) | 0.86 (0.69, 1.08) | |
Nucleoli present? | 0.84 | |||||
No | 59 | 1695 (100%) | 809 (48%) | 886 (52%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 13 | 375 (100%) | 181 (48%) | 194 (52%) | 1.02 (0.83, 1.25) | |
Calcifications present in lesion? | 0.35 | |||||
No | 43 | 1235 (100%) | 601 (49%) | 634 (51%) | 1.0 | |
Yes | 29 | 835 (100%) | 389 (47%) | 446 (53%) | 0.92 (0.77, 1.10) | |
Development of architecture in lesion: | 0.59 | |||||
Well developed | 14 | 409 (100%) | 189 (46%) | 220 (54%) | 1.0 | |
Partial or Solid/Subtle | 56 | 1604 (100%) | 768 (48%) | 836 (52%) | 1.07 (0.84, 1.37) | |
Uniformity of process in lesion: | 0.79 | |||||
Uniform | 53 | 1519 (100%) | 729 (48%) | 790 (52%) | 1.0 | |
Partial | 18 | 522 (100%) | 247 (47%) | 275 (53%) | 0.97 (0.80, 1.19) |
Odds ratios and p-values produced using GEE.
For these features, there were rare cases in which there was no agreement on the scoring (using the 3 reviewing pathologist scores). This occurred in < 1% of all assessments (8/1224) and they were not included in the overall scoring for that histologic feature.