Breast Pathology Second Review Identifies Clinically Significant Discrepancies in Over 10% of Patients

被引:36
作者
Khazai, Laila [1 ]
Middleton, Lavinia P. [1 ]
Goktepe, Nazli [1 ]
Liu, Benjamin T. [1 ]
Sahin, Aysegul A. [1 ]
机构
[1] UT MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Pathol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
breast pathology; quality; second opinion; error; SURGICAL PATHOLOGY; OPINION; CHECKLISTS; DIAGNOSIS; LESIONS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1002/jso.23788
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Patients seeking a second opinion or continuation of care at our hospital will routinely have their pathology reviewed prior to initiating treatment. To assess the relevance of this review in patients with breast cancer, we compared original pathology reports submitted during the referral with second-review reports issued at our institution. We also assessed compliance with College of American Pathologists (CAP) requirements regarding inclusion of scientifically validated data elements (SVDE) in these pathology reports. Methods: We retrospectively studied all 1,970 breast pathology referral cases reviewed during one calendar year. The variables studied were histologic classification; tumor grade, necrosis, size, margin status, lymphatic/vascular invasion, dermal involvement, and biomarker profile (ER, PR, and Her-2). Each variable was rated as "agree," "disagree," "missing information," or "not applicable." Results: A significant discrepancy, defined as a disagreement that affected patient care, was found in 226 cases (11.47%). Additionally, in 418 resection cases (31.6%), some CAP-checklist specific required information was missing. The most common areas of significant discrepancy were histologic category (66 cases; 33%) and biomarker reporting (50 cases; 25%). The most problematic diagnostic categories were intraductal lesions, lobular carcinoma, metaplastic carcinomas, and phyllodes tumors. Most disagreements in the biomarker-profile category were interpretive, but in 20% of discrepant cases, findings were supported by repeat immunohistochemical analysis. Conclusions: Our results confirm the value and utility of obtaining a second opinion to optimize patient care. Changes in diagnoses obtained after second review should be interpreted and reported in a collaborative fashion, noting the benefit of a review from second pair of experienced eyes. Our results support the use of second review to ensure inclusion of CAP-required data elements in pathology reports. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:192 / 197
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] ABT AB, 1995, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V119, P514
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1992, Mod Pathol, V5, P567
  • [3] The Value of Mandatory Second Opinion Pathology Review of Prostate Needle Biopsy Interpretation Before Radical Prostatectomy
    Brimo, Fadi
    Schultz, Luciana
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2010, 184 (01) : 126 - 130
  • [4] College of American Pathologists-Cancer Protocols and Checklists, 2013, COLL AM PATH CANC PR
  • [5] Referrals for second opinion in surgical pathology: implications for management of cancer patients in the UK
    Cook, IS
    McCormick, D
    Poller, DN
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2001, 27 (06): : 589 - 594
  • [6] Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology - Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy
    Epstein, JI
    Walsh, PC
    Sanfilippo, F
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 1996, 20 (07) : 851 - 857
  • [7] Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review - A survey of current practice
    Gupta, D
    Layfield, LJ
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2000, 24 (02) : 280 - 284
  • [8] American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer
    Hammond, M. Elizabeth H.
    Hayes, Daniel F.
    Dowsett, Mitch
    Allred, D. Craig
    Hagerty, Karen L.
    Badve, Sunil
    Fitzgibbons, Patrick L.
    Francis, Glenn
    Goldstein, Neil S.
    Hayes, Malcolm
    Hicks, David G.
    Lester, Susan
    Love, Richard
    Mangu, Pamela B.
    McShane, Lisa
    Miller, Keith
    Osborne, C. Kent
    Paik, Soonmyung
    Perlmutter, Jane
    Rhodes, Anthony
    Sasano, Hironobu
    Schwartz, Jared N.
    Sweep, Fred C. G.
    Taube, Sheila
    Torlakovic, Emina Emilia
    Valenstein, Paul
    Viale, Giuseppe
    Visscher, Daniel
    Wheeler, Thomas
    Williams, R. Bruce
    Wittliff, James L.
    Wolff, Antonio C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (16) : 2784 - 2795
  • [10] KEMPSON RL, 1992, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V116, P1107