title: Breast pathology review: does it make a difference?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Breast pathology is a challenging field, and previous work has shown discrepancies in diagnoses, even among experts. We set out to determine whether mandatory pathology review changes the diagnosis or surgical management of breast disease.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cases were referred for pathology review after patients presented for surgical opinion to the Dubin Breast Center at Mount Sinai Medical Center over the course of 2 years. Surgical pathologists with expertise in breast disease reviewed slides submitted from the primary institution and rendered a second opinion diagnosis. Comparison of these reports was performed for evaluation of major changes in diagnosis and definitive surgical management.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 306 patients with 430 biopsy specimens were reviewed. Change in diagnosis was documented in 72 (17 %) of 430 cases and change in surgical management in 41 (10 %). A change in diagnosis was more likely to occur in patients originally diagnosed with benign rather than malignant disease (31 vs. 7 %, p < 0.001). Twelve (7 %) of 169 specimens initially diagnosed as benign were reclassified as malignant. A malignant diagnosis was changed to benign in 4 (2 %) of 261 cases. Change in diagnosis was less common in specimens originating from commercial laboratories than community hospitals or university hospitals (8, 19, 21 %, p = 0.023). Change in management was not dependent on initial institution. Type of biopsy specimen (surgical or core) did not influence diagnostic or management changes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We recommend considering breast pathology review based on the individual clinical scenario, regardless of initial pathologic diagnosis or originating institution.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Dubin Breast Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA, anyamromanoff@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Anya M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Romanoff
authors.forename: Almog
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cohen
authors.forename: Hank
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Schmidt
authors.forename: Christina R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Weltz
authors.forename: Shabnam M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Jaffer
authors.forename: Chandandeep S
authors.initials: CS
authors.lastname: Nagi
authors.forename: Ira J
authors.initials: IJ
authors.lastname: Bleiweiss
authors.forename: Elisa R
authors.initials: ER
authors.lastname: Port
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D018270:Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D002285:Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D018275:Carcinoma, Lobular / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000517:prevention & control*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D060787:Neoplasm Grading; D009361:Neoplasm Invasiveness; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D010340:Pathology, Surgical; D011379:Prognosis; D012017:Referral and Consultation