H A Salmon1, J H F Smith, M Balsitis. 1. Department of Histopathology, Northern General Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether microscopic examination of macroscopically normal hysterectomy specimens yields findings that could alter subsequent clinical management. METHODS: All pathology reports on hysterectomy specimens submitted to the department of histopathology at the Northern General Hospital from January 1997 to December 1998 were reviewed. Cases were included for further assessment if the hysterectomy specimen was regarded as macroscopically normal by a consultant pathologist and if the patient had no history of, or suspicion of, neoplastic disease. The subsequent microscopic findings from these cases were assessed to determine whether any lesions of clinical importance were identified. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifty four specimens were reviewed, of which 139 were suitable for inclusion. Only one of the 139 cases harboured a microscopic abnormality that necessitated specific clinical follow up; this was a focus of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN 2). On follow up of that patient, no further neoplastic disease was identified. CONCLUSION: Microscopic assessment of macroscopically normal hysterectomy specimens does not contribute to patient management and is unnecessary in an era of manpower shortage and cost containment.
AIM: To determine whether microscopic examination of macroscopically normal hysterectomy specimens yields findings that could alter subsequent clinical management. METHODS: All pathology reports on hysterectomy specimens submitted to the department of histopathology at the Northern General Hospital from January 1997 to December 1998 were reviewed. Cases were included for further assessment if the hysterectomy specimen was regarded as macroscopically normal by a consultant pathologist and if the patient had no history of, or suspicion of, neoplastic disease. The subsequent microscopic findings from these cases were assessed to determine whether any lesions of clinical importance were identified. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifty four specimens were reviewed, of which 139 were suitable for inclusion. Only one of the 139 cases harboured a microscopic abnormality that necessitated specific clinical follow up; this was a focus of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN 2). On follow up of that patient, no further neoplastic disease was identified. CONCLUSION: Microscopic assessment of macroscopically normal hysterectomy specimens does not contribute to patient management and is unnecessary in an era of manpower shortage and cost containment.