From Image to Diagnosis: Characterizing Sources of Error in Histopathologic Interpretation

Tad T Brunyé; Agnes Balla; Trafton Drew; Joann G Elmore; Kathleen F Kerr; Hannah Shucard; Donald L Weaver

doi:10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100162

From Image to Diagnosis: Characterizing Sources of Error in Histopathologic Interpretation

Mod Pathol. 2023 Jul;36(7):100162. doi: 10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100162. Epub 2023 Mar 21.

Authors

Tad T Brunyé¹, Agnes Balla², Trafton Drew³, Joann G Elmore⁴, Kathleen F Kerr⁵, Hannah Shucard⁵, Donald L Weaver²

Affiliations

¹ Center for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts; Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts. Electronic address: tbruny01@tufts.edu.
² Department of Pathology, University of Vermont and Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, Vermont.
³ Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
⁴ Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
⁵ Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, DC.

PMID: 36948400
DOI: 10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100162

Abstract

An accurate histopathologic diagnosis on surgical biopsy material is necessary for the clinical management of patients and has important implications for research, clinical trial design/enrollment, and public health education. This study used a mixed methods approach to isolate sources of diagnostic error while residents and attending pathologists interpreted digitized breast biopsy slides. Ninety participants, including pathology residents and attending physicians at major United States medical centers reviewed a set of 14 digitized whole-slide images of breast biopsies. Each case had a consensus-defined diagnosis and critical region of interest (cROI) representing the most significant pathology on the slide. Participants were asked to view unmarked digitized slides, draw their participant region of interest (pROI), describe its features, and render a diagnosis. Participants' review behavior was tracked using case viewer software and an eye-tracking device. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated in comparison to the consensus diagnosis. We measured the frequency of errors emerging during 4 interpretive phases: (1) detecting the cROI, (2) recognizing its relevance, (3) using the correct terminology to describe findings in the pROI, and (4) making a diagnostic decision. According to eye-tracking data, trainees and attending pathologists were very likely (∼94% of the time) to find the cROI when inspecting a slide. However, trainees were less likely to consider the cROI relevant to their diagnosis. Pathology trainees (41% of cases) were more likely to use incorrect terminology to describe pROI features than attending pathologists (21% of cases). Failure to accurately describe features was the only factor strongly associated with an incorrect diagnosis. Identifying where errors emerge in the interpretive and/or descriptive process and working on building organ-specific feature recognition and verbal fluency in describing those features are critical steps for achieving competency in diagnostic decision making.

Keywords: breast cancer; decision making; diagnosis; eye-tracking; medical education; pathology.

Publication types

Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

MeSH terms

Breast* / pathology
Consensus
Diagnostic Errors / prevention & control
Humans
Pathologists
Pathology, Clinical*
United States

Abstract

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding