Accuracy and Completeness of Pathology Reporting — Impact on Partial Breast Irradiation Eligibility

• Published in: Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 2012-04, Vol.24 (3), p.177-182
• Main Authors: Pignol, J.-P, Rakovitch, E, Zeppieri, J, Hanna, W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Brachytherapy; Breast - pathology; Breast - radiation effects; Breast Neoplasms - pathology; Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Breast radiotherapy; Carcinoma in Situ - pathology; Carcinoma in Situ - radiotherapy; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Eligibility Determination; Female; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Humans; Lymph Nodes - pathology; Lymph Nodes - radiation effects; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Staging; partial breast irradiation; Patient Selection; Prognosis; Radiation Oncology - standards; Radiology; secondary pathology expert review; synoptic reporting
• ISSN: 0936-6555; 1433-2981
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2011.09.004

Abstract Aims Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is an alternative to whole breast irradiation that is delivered over a shorter period of time with less toxicity. Appropriate patient selection is critical to its success and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has published detailed selection criteria for ‘suitable’ patients. This study evaluated the effect of those selection criteria on APBI eligibility based on pathology reports. Materials and methods From March 2004 to March 2007 all patients referred to a single cancer centre for breast radiotherapy were screened for participation in a phase I/II trial of permanent breast seed implant brachytherapy. Eligible patients underwent a computed tomography simulation and those referred from an outside institution had a secondary expert breast pathology assessment. Initial and expert pathology reports were compared regarding completeness and accuracy. Results In total, 143 patients were eligible for the trial; 79 patients had surgery carried out outside our institution. In the initial pathology report, the most frequently missing critical information was the resection margin width (29.1%) and the presence of extensive in situ carcinoma (11.4%). Comparing initial and reviewed pathology, the agreement was higher than 90% for most features. The main source of disagreement was the width of the negative resection margin, with 34.4% disagreement ( P = 0.016), although it changed eligibility in only 3.6%. There was major disagreement in the evaluation of lymphovascular invasion. Overall, pathology review changed the eligibility for a patient from ‘suitable’ for APBI to ‘cautionary’ in 18.6% of the cases. Conclusion Using stringent eligibility criteria has a direct effect on patient screening for APBI. The use of synoptic pathology reporting and a quality assurance programme with secondary expert assessments are recommended.