Diagnostic concordance of reporting lymphovascular invasion in breast cancer

Aims This study aims to assess the diagnostic agreement of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in invasive breast cancer (BC). Methods Data on LVI were collected from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme pathology external quality assurance scheme database. 101 BCs assessed over a 10-year period (2004–2014) were included. Cases were scored by an average of 600 pathologists. Three H&E stained slides from each case were reviewed by three pathologists and additional variables were evaluated. Results In the whole series, the overall κ value was 0.4 (range 0.26–0.53). On review, LVI was detected in all three slides in 20 cases (20%), in two slides in 12 cases and in one of the three slides in 9 cases and was not seen in 60 cases. For concordance analysis, the first and last groups were used to represent cases with definite (LVI+) and absent LVI (LVI–), respectively. In the LVI+group (n=20), the level of agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.99 (median 0.86). In the LVI– group (n=60), the level of agreement ranged from 0.52 to 1.00 (median 0.93), with 44% of cases showing interobserver concordance of >95%. There was a correlation between increasing number of involved lymphovascular spaces in the section and higher LVI reporting concordance. Some degree of retraction/fixation artefacts was observed in 35% of cases; this was associated with a lower concordance rate. Conclusions The concordance of reporting LVI is variable. Cases without LVI and those with multiple involved vessels are likely to have the highest concordance and the highest detection rates.

[1]  S. Edge,et al.  Breast Cancer—Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual , 2017, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[2]  Ian O Ellis,et al.  Review of the national external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for breast pathology in the UK , 2016, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[3]  A. Mukherjee,et al.  Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Lymphovascular Invasion in Invasive Breast Cancer , 2015, Pathobiology.

[4]  I. Ellis,et al.  Inclusion of KI67 significantly improves performance of the PREDICT prognostication and prediction model for early breast cancer , 2014, BMC Cancer.

[5]  M. Morrow,et al.  Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and HER2 Status Predict Lymphovascular Invasion and Lymph Node Involvement , 2014, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[6]  S. Stacker,et al.  Lymphangiogenesis and lymphatic vessel remodelling in cancer , 2014, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[7]  I. Ellis,et al.  The prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in invasive breast carcinoma , 2012, Cancer.

[8]  Darren Treanor,et al.  Observer agreement comparing the use of virtual slides with glass slides in the pathology review component of the POSH breast cancer cohort study , 2012, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[9]  M. Park,et al.  The Role of Lymphovascular Invasion as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Lymph Node-Positive Operable Invasive Breast Cancer , 2011, Journal of breast cancer.

[10]  I. Ellis,et al.  Objective assessment of lymphatic and blood vascular invasion in lymph node‐negative breast carcinoma: findings from a large case series with long‐term follow‐up , 2011, The Journal of pathology.

[11]  V. Brouste,et al.  Re: Population-based study of peritumoral lymphovascular invasion and outcome among patients with operable breast cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  B. Rasmussen,et al.  Population-based study of peritumoral lymphovascular invasion and outcome among patients with operable breast cancer. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  A. Luini,et al.  Prognostic role of the extent of peritumoral vascular invasion in operable breast cancer. , 2007, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  I. Ellis,et al.  Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[15]  I. Ellis,et al.  The NHS breast screening programme (pathology) EQA: experience in recent years relating to issues involved in individual performance appraisal , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[16]  I. Olivotto,et al.  Lymphovascular invasion is associated with reduced locoregional control and survival in women with node-negative breast cancer treated with mastectomy and systemic therapy. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[17]  Karen A Gelmon,et al.  Population-based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  Pathology reporting in breast cancer screening , 2004 .

[19]  Helena R. Chang,et al.  Clinicopathologic Analysis of Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Early Breast Cancer , 2003, The breast journal.

[20]  A. Bianco,et al.  The prognostic value of lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in operable breast cancer , 1995, Cancer.

[21]  A. Silman,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. , 1992, BMJ.

[22]  A. Lee,et al.  Prognostic significance of peritumoral lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in node-negative carcinoma of the breast. , 1990, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.