Testicular cancer: The usage of central review for pathology diagnosis of orchiectomy specimens

Background: Radical orchiectomy specimens present a unique set of challenges for pathology assessment owing to their rarity and complexity. This study compares second opinion pathology reports generated at a single, large academic institution to primary reports from outside hospitals. Methods: A database search was conducted for orchiectomy cases that were sent to our institution for management of testicular cancer from 2014 to 2015. Cases sent for consultation without a finalized diagnosis from the outside hospitals were excluded. A total of 221 consecutive cases were evaluated for comparison of final diagnoses between the outside institution and central pathology review. Results: This study revealed significant discrepancy involving multiple parameters between original and second opinion pathology reports. Of 221 cases of germ cell tumors assessed, 31% showed some discrepancy of histologic subtype. Overall, reporting of lymphovascular invasion changed in 22% of cases; of those, initially called positive 23% were changed to negative and of those initially called negative 12% were changed to positive. Although the overall discrepancy for spermatic cord invasion was 9%, an initial positive diagnosis was negated 35% of the time. The pathologic stage was altered in 23% of cases, mostly secondary to differences interpreting lymphovascular and spermatic cord invasion. Conclusion: Pathologists evaluating orchiectomy specimens should be aware of the major pitfalls in classification and staging, many of which may affect patient management. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.