Abstract
Accurate, consistent and reproducible grading by pathologists is of key-importance for identification of individual patients with invasive breast cancer (IBC) that will or will not benefit from adjuvant systemic treatment. We studied the laboratory-specific grading variation using nationwide real-life data to create insight and awareness in grading variation. Synoptic pathology reports of all IBC resection-specimens, obtained between 2013 and 2016, were retrieved from the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Absolute differences in laboratory-proportions of Grades I-III were compared to the national reference. Multivariable logistic regression provided laboratory-specific odds ratios (ORs) for high- vs. low-grade IBC. 33,792 IBC pathology reports of 33,043 patients from 39 laboratories were included, of which 28.1% were reported as Grade I (range between laboratories 16.3-43.3%), 47.6% as Grade II (38.4-57.8%), and 24.3% as Grade III (15.5-34.3%). Based on national guidelines, the indication for adjuvant chemotherapy was dependent on histologic grade in 29.9% of patients. After case-mix correction, 20 laboratories (51.3%) showed a significantly deviant OR. Significant grading differences were also observed among pathologists within laboratories. In this cohort of 33,043 breast cancer patients, we observed substantial inter- and intra-laboratory variation in histologic grading. It can be anticipated that this has influenced outcome including exposure to unnecessary toxicity, since choice of adjuvant chemotherapy was dependent on grade in nearly a third of patients. Better standardization and training seems warranted.