Literature DB >> 10435555

Diagnostic discrepancies in breast specimens subjected to gross reexamination.

E L Wiley1, P Keh.   

Abstract

To determine the accuracy of gross examination of breast specimens from a large university pathology service, 1120 breast specimens submitted from 1995 to 1997 that had residual tissue after submission of tissue sections were reexamined for diagnostic discrepancies. A total of 520 mastectomies, 143 wire localization excisions, 156 lumpectomies, and 301 mammoplasties were reexamined. Fifty-three (5%) major and 65 (6%) minor diagnostic discrepancies were detected. Major discrepancies included eight additional positive lymph nodes, 37 missed cancers, four upstagings by size, and four skin invasions. Forty-four of the major discrepancies were in mastectomy specimens. First-year residents accounted for slightly more than one half of all discrepancies. In contrast, review of original slides of 733 breast cancer cases revealed only 11 (1.5%) major discrepancies: three changes of margin status, six missed carcinomas, one positive lymph node, and one upstaging by size. Most discrepancies occurred because a specimen was not thoroughly inspected. The second most common cause was failure to recognize lesions. Our findings suggest that gross dissection performed by first-year residents is more prone to error and that such discrepancies are amenable to instruction and supervision.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10435555     DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199908000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  3 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of whole-mount pathology processing for patients with early breast cancer undergoing breast conservation.

Authors:  N J Look Hong; G M Clarke; M J Yaffe; C M B Holloway
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Comparison of mammography and ultrasound in detecting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Xiufeng Wu; Qingzhong Lin; Jianping Lu; Gang Chen; Y I Zeng; Yinglan Lin; Ying Chen; Yaoqin Wang; Jun Yan
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-01-14

3.  Ductal carcinoma in situ is presumably not a metastatic disease: a reply to "Commentary: Wherein the authors attempt to minimize the confusion generated by their study 'Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ' by several commentators who disagree with them and a few who don't: a qualitative study".

Authors:  Brett T Snodgrass
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 3.677

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.