BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the magnitude, direction and predictors of change in the main hospital discharge diagnosis (HDD) after a clinical expert review, among patients included in a multicentre molecular epidemiologic study of biliopancreatic diseases. METHODS: A total of 602 patients with a suspicion diagnosis of pancreas cancer (PC), cancer of the extrahepatic biliary system (CEBS) or benign biliopancreatic pathologies (BPP) were prospectively recruited at five general hospitals. A structured form was used to collect information from medical records. A panel of experts revised all diagnostic information and established the main clinicopathological diagnosis (CPD) by consensus. RESULTS: Of the 204 cases with a HDD of PC, 176 (86%) were deemed to have a CPD of PC, eight of CEBS, twelve a neoplasm of different origin, four BPP and four syndromic diagnoses. Thus, 28 cases (14%) were false positives. Of the 129 patients with a HDD of CEBS, 15 (12%) were false positives. Nine of the 396 cases with a HDD of non-PC (2%) had a CPD of PC (false negatives), whilst 14 of 471 patients with a HDD of non-CEBS (3%) were deemed to have CEBS. Overall, sensitivity and specificity of HDD for PC were, respectively, 95 and 93%, and for CEBS, 89 and 97%. Cytohistological confirmation and laparotomy were independent predictors of diagnostic change. CONCLUSIONS: Validity of the HDD was high, but its association with some clinical variables suggests that sole reliance on HDD can significantly bias results, and highlights the need to review all HDDs. Alternatively, only patients at high risk of misdiagnosis could be reviewed: primarily, those lacking a cytohistological diagnosis or a laparotomy. No exclusions appear warranted solely on the basis of age, gender or tumour spread.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the magnitude, direction and predictors of change in the main hospital discharge diagnosis (HDD) after a clinical expert review, among patients included in a multicentre molecular epidemiologic study of biliopancreatic diseases. METHODS: A total of 602 patients with a suspicion diagnosis of pancreas cancer (PC), cancer of the extrahepatic biliary system (CEBS) or benign biliopancreatic pathologies (BPP) were prospectively recruited at five general hospitals. A structured form was used to collect information from medical records. A panel of experts revised all diagnostic information and established the main clinicopathological diagnosis (CPD) by consensus. RESULTS: Of the 204 cases with a HDD of PC, 176 (86%) were deemed to have a CPD of PC, eight of CEBS, twelve a neoplasm of different origin, four BPP and four syndromic diagnoses. Thus, 28 cases (14%) were false positives. Of the 129 patients with a HDD of CEBS, 15 (12%) were false positives. Nine of the 396 cases with a HDD of non-PC (2%) had a CPD of PC (false negatives), whilst 14 of 471 patients with a HDD of non-CEBS (3%) were deemed to have CEBS. Overall, sensitivity and specificity of HDD for PC were, respectively, 95 and 93%, and for CEBS, 89 and 97%. Cytohistological confirmation and laparotomy were independent predictors of diagnostic change. CONCLUSIONS: Validity of the HDD was high, but its association with some clinical variables suggests that sole reliance on HDD can significantly bias results, and highlights the need to review all HDDs. Alternatively, only patients at high risk of misdiagnosis could be reviewed: primarily, those lacking a cytohistological diagnosis or a laparotomy. No exclusions appear warranted solely on the basis of age, gender or tumour spread.
Authors: M Porta; N Malats; L Guarner; A Carrato; J Rifà; A Salas; J M Corominas; M Andreu; F X Real Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: I A Ojajärvi; T J Partanen; A Ahlbom; P Boffetta; T Hakulinen; N Jourenkova; T P Kauppinen; M Kogevinas; M Porta; H U Vainio; E Weiderpass; C H Wesseling Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: E Weiderpass; T Partanen; R Kaaks; H Vainio; M Porta; T Kauppinen; A Ojajärvi; P Boffetta; N Malats Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Miquel Porta; Xavier Fabregat; Núria Malats; Luisa Guarner; Alfredo Carrato; Ana de Miguel; Laura Ruiz; Manuel Jariod; Sergi Costafreda; Susana Coll; Juan Alguacil; Josep M Corominas; Ricard Solà; Antonio Salas; Francisco X Real Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Matthias Treiber; Hans-Ulrich Schulz; Olfert Landt; Joost P H Drenth; Carlo Castellani; Francisco X Real; Nejat Akar; Rudolf W Ammann; Mario Bargetzi; Eesh Bhatia; Andrew Glenn Demaine; Cinzia Battagia; Andrew Kingsnorth; Derek O'Reilly; Kaspar Truninger; Monika Koudova; Julius Spicak; Milos Cerny; Hans-Jürgen Menzel; Pedro Moral; Pier Franco Pignatti; Maria Grazia Romanelli; Olga Rickards; Gian Franco De Stefano; Narcis Octavian Zarnescu; Gourdas Choudhuri; Sadiq S Sikora; Jan B M J Jansen; Frank Ulrich Weiss; Matthias Pietschmann; Niels Teich; Thomas M Gress; Johann Ockenga; Hartmut Schmidt; Andreas Kage; Juliane Halangk; Jonas Rosendahl; David Alexander Groneberg; Renate Nickel; Heiko Witt Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2006-10-13 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Álvaro Gómez-Tomás; José Pumarega; Juan Alguacil; André F S Amaral; Núria Malats; Natàlia Pallarès; Magda Gasull; Miquel Porta Journal: Environ Mol Mutagen Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 3.216
Authors: Miquel Porta; José Pumarega; André F S Amaral; Jeanine M Genkinger; Judit Camargo; Lorelei Mucci; Juan Alguacil; Magda Gasull; Xuehong Zhang; Eva Morales; Mar Iglesias; Shuji Ogino; Lawrence S Engel Journal: Environ Res Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Anna S Gerdtsson; Núria Malats; Anna Säll; Francisco X Real; Miquel Porta; Petter Skoog; Helena Persson; Christer Wingren; Carl A K Borrebaeck Journal: Int J Proteomics Date: 2015-10-26