Literature DB >> 10590387

Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital.

J D Kronz1, W H Westra, J I Epstein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When patients are referred to one's own institution for therapy based on a histopathologic diagnosis rendered at another institution, many hospitals require a second opinion of the surgical pathology material. This quality assurance practice has been threatened in the era of managed care and cost containment.
METHODS: The authors reviewed the impact of mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. Cases were collected prospectively over a 21-month period from April 1995 to December 1996. For the purposes of this study, a changed diagnosis was defined as a discordant diagnosis resulting in a major modification in therapy or prognosis. The majority of cases involved a change between benign and malignant or a major change in tumor classification. Changes involving a modification of tumor grade or stage were not included.
RESULTS: Of 6171 cases reviewed, second opinion surgical pathology resulted in 86 changed diagnoses (1.4%). Compared with the entire group, 2 organ systems were significantly more likely to undergo a change in diagnosis: serosal surfaces (9. 5%) (P < 0.0001) and the female reproductive tract (5.1%) (P < 0. 0001). Organ systems that were not more likely to undergo a change in diagnosis than the group as a whole included the skin (2.9%); central nervous system (2.8%); breast (1.4%); genitourinary system (1.2%); gastrointestinal tract (1.2%); hematologic system (1.1%); ear, nose, and throat (1.0%); bone/soft tissue (0.9%); lung (0.6%); endocrine (0%); mediastinum (0%); and cardiovascular system (0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Second opinion surgical pathology can result in major therapeutic and prognostic modifications for patients sent to large referral hospitals. Although the overall percentage of affected cases is not large, the consistent rate of discrepant diagnosis uncovered by second opinion surgical pathology may have an enormous human and financial impact. Accordingly, the authors recommend that review of the original histologic material should be undertaken prior to the institution of a major therapeutic endeavor. Copyright 1999 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10590387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  29 in total

1.  [Testicular germ cell cancer : interdependence between guidelines and a second-opinion system].

Authors:  M Schrader; M Hartmann; S Krege; A Heidenreich; K Miller; L Weissbach
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  How trustworthy is a diagnosis in head and neck surgical pathology? A consideration of diagnostic discrepancies (errors).

Authors:  Julia A Woolgar; Alfio Ferlito; Kenneth O Devaney; Alessandra Rinaldo; Leon Barnes
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 3.  The Empirical Foundations of Telepathology: Evidence of Feasibility and Intermediate Effects.

Authors:  Rashid L Bashshur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Ronald S Weinstein; Matthew R Dunn; Noura Bashshur
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 3.536

4.  Human errors in medical practice: systematic classification and reduction with automated information systems.

Authors:  D Kopec; M H Kabir; D Reinharth; O Rothschild; J A Castiglione
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.460

5.  [Histopathology reports of findings of prostate needle biopsies. Individual treatment].

Authors:  I Damjanoski; J Müller; T J Schnöller; R Küfer; L Rinnab
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  A European project on incidence, treatment, and outcome of sarcoma.

Authors:  Giuseppe Mastrangelo; Emanuela Fadda; Luca Cegolon; Maria C Montesco; Isabel Ray-Coquard; Alessandra Buja; Ugo Fedeli; Alvise Frasson; Paolo Spolaore; Carlo R Rossi
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-04-12       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Inter-institutional pathology consultations for breast cancer: impact on clinical oncology therapy recommendations.

Authors:  J A Price; E Grunfeld; P J Barnes; D E Rheaume; D Rayson
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.677

8.  Epidemiological evaluation of concordance between initial diagnosis and central pathology review in a comprehensive and prospective series of sarcoma patients in the Rhone-Alpes region.

Authors:  Antoine Lurkin; Francoise Ducimetière; Dominique Ranchère Vince; Anne-Valérie Decouvelaere; Dominic Cellier; François N Gilly; Dimitri Salameire; Pierre Biron; Guy de Laroche; Jean Yves Blay; Isabelle Ray-Coquard
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-04-19       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Paul D Frederick; Stevan R Knezevich; Jason P Lott; Heidi D Nelson; Linda J Titus; Patricia A Carney; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy L Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Martin A Weinstock; David E Elder; Michael W Piepkorn; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Dermatol Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.398

10.  Salivary type tumors seen in consultation.

Authors:  Simion I Chiosea; Robert Peel; E Leon Barnes; Raja R Seethala
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2009-03-07       Impact factor: 4.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.