Literature DB >> 23518913

Outside slide review in gynecologic oncology: impact on patient care and treatment.

Ramez N Eskander1, Juri Baruah, Rohith Nayak, Taylor Brueseke, Toa Ji, Roobah Wardeh, Krishnansu S Tewari.   

Abstract

In gynecologic oncology, surgical and adjuvant therapy rely heavily on correct pathologic diagnosis. Thus, in-house review of outside pathologic slides and specimens has become routine within large tertiary referral centers. We sought to determine the impact of outside pathologic slide review on gynecologic oncology patient care and treatment. Gynecologic oncology cases between January 2007 and January 2012 were evaluated. Clinical information was gathered from comprehensive chart reviews and reports created after multidisciplinary treatment planning conferences. Discrepancies in diagnosis were identified as major if they resulted in a treatment alteration and minor if they did not impact care. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Fisher exact test. A total of 279 cases were identified and reviewed as part of the study--126 (45.2%) biopsy/cytology specimens and 153 (54.8%) surgical excision specimens. Minor discrepancies were noted in 25 reviewed cases (9%) and major discrepancies in 19 cases (6.8%). Among those patients in whom management was changed based on specialized pathologic review, 50% underwent additional surgery, 16% had their surgical plan modified, and 16% received adjuvant treatment or had their adjuvant treatment modified. In 235 cases (84.2%), institutional rereview of the outside slides/specimens did not result in a change in diagnosis. Diagnostic discrepancies were evenly distributed across all primary sites evaluated. The cost of outside pathologic review was estimated at $2,936 US dollars per change in diagnosis. Mandatory slide review in gynecologic oncology is important and results in diagnostic changes in approximately 16% of cases, with 43% of those changes impacting treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23518913     DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31826739c4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol        ISSN: 0277-1691            Impact factor:   2.762


  4 in total

1.  Relevance of routine pathology review in cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  Heleen J van Beekhuizen; Mieloe D Freulings; Shatavisha Dasgupta; Folkert J van Kemenade; Patricia C Ewing-Graham; Helena C van Doorn
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer.

Authors:  Lucas Minig; José Manuel Bosch; Carmen Illueca; Cristina Zorrero; José Miguel Cárdenas-Rebollo; Julia Cruz; Ignacio Romero
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2019-05-13

3.  Impact of review of histopathology specimens at a tertiary oncology hospital in Eastern India-lessons learnt.

Authors:  Debdeep Dey; Bhagat Singh Lali; Paromita Roy; Divya Midha; Indu Arun; Lateef Zameer; Anand Bardia; Geetashree Mukherjee
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2022-08-25

4.  Phase I trial of EpCAM-targeting immunotoxin MOC31PE, alone and in combination with cyclosporin.

Authors:  Y Andersson; O Engebraaten; S Juell; S Aamdal; P Brunsvig; Ø Fodstad; S Dueland
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 7.640

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.