BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of hematologic malignancies, published in 2000, was designed to improve diagnostic accuracy by incorporating the latest in scientific understanding. The impact of the WHO classification on the frequency of diagnostic discrepancy in lymphoma is unknown. METHODS: We reviewed all second-opinion pathology of lymphoma at our National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCC) from January to June 2001 and from January to June 2006. Discrepancies between submitted and second-opinion diagnoses were scored based upon an a priori grading schema. RESULTS: Major diagnostic revision was rendered in 65 of 365 cases (17.8%) in 2001 and 58 of 354 (16.4%) in 2006 (P=NS). Including cases reviewed and revised beforehand at another NCI-CCC, rates of major diagnostic revision were 21.4% and 18.6%, respectively (P=NS). Discrepancy rates varied by diagnosis, from Hodgkin lymphoma (10%) to Burkitt's lymphoma (75%). No association was seen for age, gender, race/ethnicity, biopsy type, or nature of referring center. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful diagnostic revision occurs frequently with expert pathology review for a diagnosis of lymphoma. Despite the WHO classification, rates of diagnostic revision at our institution in 2001 and 2006 did not differ significantly. Given the potential harm from misdiagnosis, expert hematopathology review should be considered the standard of care.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of hematologic malignancies, published in 2000, was designed to improve diagnostic accuracy by incorporating the latest in scientific understanding. The impact of the WHO classification on the frequency of diagnostic discrepancy in lymphoma is unknown. METHODS: We reviewed all second-opinion pathology of lymphoma at our National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCC) from January to June 2001 and from January to June 2006. Discrepancies between submitted and second-opinion diagnoses were scored based upon an a priori grading schema. RESULTS: Major diagnostic revision was rendered in 65 of 365 cases (17.8%) in 2001 and 58 of 354 (16.4%) in 2006 (P=NS). Including cases reviewed and revised beforehand at another NCI-CCC, rates of major diagnostic revision were 21.4% and 18.6%, respectively (P=NS). Discrepancy rates varied by diagnosis, from Hodgkin lymphoma (10%) to Burkitt's lymphoma (75%). No association was seen for age, gender, race/ethnicity, biopsy type, or nature of referring center. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful diagnostic revision occurs frequently with expert pathology review for a diagnosis of lymphoma. Despite the WHO classification, rates of diagnostic revision at our institution in 2001 and 2006 did not differ significantly. Given the potential harm from misdiagnosis, expert hematopathology review should be considered the standard of care.
Authors: Luis F R Taveira; Tahsin Kurc; Alba C M A Melo; Jun Kong; Erich Bremer; Joel H Saltz; George Teodoro Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.056
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
Authors: Chantal C H J Kuijpers; Mike Visser; Daisy M D S Sie-Go; Henk de Leeuw; Mathilda J de Rooij; Paul J van Diest; Mehdi Jiwa Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Rebecca L King; Grzegorz S Nowakowski; Thomas E Witzig; David W Scott; Richard F Little; Fangxin Hong; Randy D Gascoyne; Brad S Kahl; William R Macon Journal: Blood Cancer J Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 11.037
Authors: Peter Sawan; Karim Rebeiz; Heiko Schoder; Connie Batlevi; Alison Moskowitz; Gary A Ulaner; Mark Dunphy; Lorenzo Mannelli Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.817