Document Detail


Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  10432147     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of routine second review of pathologic material that was sent to Ohio State University before initiation of therapy. METHODS: All the gynecologic-oncologic histopathology review diagnoses made during a 1-year period were compared with original pathologic diagnoses. When there was a discrepant diagnosis with the second interpretation, the case was reviewed by at least two pathologists. Discrepancies were coded as no diagnostic disagreement, no diagnostic disagreement but pertinent information not included, diagnostic disagreement without clinical consequences, diagnostic disagreement with minor clinical significance, or diagnostic disagreement with major clinical significance. Proportions and confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Pathology reports from 295 referred patients were reviewed. Two hundred forty-five (83.1%) showed no discrepancy. Discrepancies were found in 50 cases (16.9%). There was significant information missing in four cases (1.4%), diagnostic disagreement with no clinical significance in 22 cases (7.5%), and diagnostic disagreement with minor clinical significance in 10 cases (3.4%). In 14 cases (4.7%, 95% confidence interval 2.28, 7.12) the changes in diagnoses had major therapeutic or prognostic implications that included changes from malignant or low malignant potential to benign (seven cases), malignant to low malignant potential (three cases), change in tumor type (two cases), and assessment of invasion (two cases). The cost of reviewing 295 specimens was approximately $39,235. The cost of identifying each major discrepancy was about $2802. CONCLUSION: Routine pathology review of gynecologic-oncologic cases before definite treatment revealed notable discrepancies in diagnoses. In 4.7% of cases, the change in diagnosis had a major effect on proper treatment planning or a significant prognostic implication.
Authors:
A E Selman; T H Niemann; J M Fowler; L J Copeland
Related Documents :
18673337 - The role and limitations of mammary ductoscope in management of pathologic nipple disch...
8469347 - Prognostic significance of the onset mode in parkinsonism.
17355507 - Migrainous visual auras: a life history.
23045437 - Heterotopic mesenteric ossification: report of a case and review of the literature.
9578877 - Leiomyosarcoma of the auricle: case report and literature review.
17116627 - Subcutaneous emphysema and pneumomediastinum secondary to dental extraction: a case rep...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Obstetrics and gynecology     Volume:  94     ISSN:  0029-7844     ISO Abbreviation:  Obstet Gynecol     Publication Date:  1999 Aug 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  1999-08-30     Completed Date:  1999-08-30     Revised Date:  2009-10-26    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0401101     Medline TA:  Obstet Gynecol     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  302-6     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210-1228, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Female
Genital Neoplasms, Female / pathology*
Humans
Observer Variation
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Referral and Consultation / statistics & numerical data*

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Imaging the urethral sphincter with three-dimensional ultrasound.
Next Document:  New technologies in cervical cytology screening: a word of caution.