Effects of Prior Diagnosis on Second Opinions and Pathologist Viewing Behaviors: Results from a Randomized Trial in Breast Pathology

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective To study the effects of exposure to a prior diagnosis (PD) on second opinions in breast pathology. Materials and Methods Pathologists interpreted digital breast biopsy cases in 2 phases separated by a washout. Phase 2 interpretations were randomly assigned to PD or no PD. When presented, PD was always more or less severe than a participant’s phase 1 diagnosis. Viewing behaviors, including zoom level, were recorded during all interpretations. Twenty pathologists yielded 556 interpretations of 32 different cases. Results Pathologists were 71% more likely to give a less severe diagnosis when exposed to a less severe PD than with no PD (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.33–2.20, P < 0.001). In comparison, when exposed to a more severe PD than with no PD, pathologists were 27% more likely to give a more severe diagnosis, but the effect was not significant (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87–1.86, P = 0.223). Compared with no PD, viewing behavior shifted toward more focus on critical image regions with exposure to a less severe PD and toward higher zoom levels with exposure to a more severe PD. Discussion Results indicate anchoring and confirmation biases from PD exposure, such that second opinions after PD exposure are not independent assessments. Viewing behaviors illustrated how PD alters the interpretive process, including increased zooming when exposed to a more severe PD. Results have implications for best practices for computer-aided diagnosis tools. Implications When giving a second opinion, exposure to a PD can sway diagnostic classifications and alter interpretive behavior, highlighting a need for protocols that encourage independent assessments. Highlights In pathology diagnosis, second opinions are systematically influenced by prior diagnostic information. Less severe prior diagnoses shift pathologists’ visual attention toward clinically critical regions of a pathology image, whereas more severe prior diagnoses tend to elicit increased magnification during case interpretation. Specific viewing behaviors partially mediate the effect of prior diagnoses on second opinion diagnoses. When prior diagnoses are disclosed to pathologists, anchoring and confirmation biases undermine the independence of second opinion decisions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.