With better breast cancer screening tools, more women are advised to undergo biopsies. But here's the problem: the procedure itself leaves some room for doubt.
A breast biopsy has become a protocol every time screening tests point to a presence of a lump or other cancer signs. In the procedure, a sample tissue is obtained and sent to the research lab for analysis. The specialists are therefore responsible for determining whether there are abnormal cells (including cancer cells) in the sample or if the tissue is benign.
However, in a study performed by University of Washington researchers led by Joann Elmore and participated by more than 100 pathologists in the United States, only a few have actually correctly analyzed more than 230 tissue samples for biopsy. Although the study didn't exactly mimic a traditional health care setting, it still raises some concerns.
In the experiment, the selected pathologists analyzed the specimens first before they were given to the country's 3 top experts. Upon analyses of their findings, there were major differences.
For instance, the odd of a pathologist to accurately determine the presence or absence of any abnormality or pre-cancerous cells is only 50%. They had also inaccurately considered 13% of the samples as abnormal.
Many of the specialists also struggled in identifying ductal cancer in situ (cancer in the breast ducts) with 3% believed to be invasive (or the cancer has already spread) while a whopping 13% of the tissues were considered as less serious.
The study is significant since more than 1 million women go through breast biopsies every year, and these procedures can help save a life by catching cancer during its early stages. With these differences, the patients may find themselves in the "gray zone," and receive over- or under-treatments.
While biopsies still remain the best option for diagnosing breast cancer, the researcher encourages women to obtain a second opinion and the scientific community to develop a more uniformed, clearer, and more accurate standard.
