BACKGROUND: Patients seeking a second opinion or continuation of care at our hospital will routinely have their pathology reviewed prior to initiating treatment. To assess the relevance of this review in patients with breast cancer, we compared original pathology reports submitted during the referral with second-review reports issued at our institution. We also assessed compliance with College of American Pathologists (CAP) requirements regarding inclusion of scientifically validated data elements (SVDE) in these pathology reports. METHODS: We retrospectively studied all 1,970 breast pathology referral cases reviewed during one calendar year. The variables studied were histologic classification; tumor grade, necrosis, size, margin status, lymphatic/vascular invasion, dermal involvement, and biomarker profile (ER, PR, and Her-2). Each variable was rated as "agree," "disagree," "missing information," or "not applicable." RESULTS: A significant discrepancy, defined as a disagreement that affected patient care, was found in 226 cases (11.47%). Additionally, in 418 resection cases (31.6%), some CAP-checklist specific required information was missing. The most common areas of significant discrepancy were histologic category (66 cases; 33%) and biomarker reporting (50 cases; 25%). The most problematic diagnostic categories were intraductal lesions, lobular carcinoma, metaplastic carcinomas, and phyllodes tumors. Most disagreements in the biomarker-profile category were interpretive, but in 20% of discrepant cases, findings were supported by repeat immunohistochemical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the value and utility of obtaining a second opinion to optimize patient care. Changes in diagnoses obtained after second review should be interpreted and reported in a collaborative fashion, noting the benefit of a review from second pair of experienced eyes. Our results support the use of second review to ensure inclusion of CAP-required data elements in pathology reports.
BACKGROUND:Patients seeking a second opinion or continuation of care at our hospital will routinely have their pathology reviewed prior to initiating treatment. To assess the relevance of this review in patients with breast cancer, we compared original pathology reports submitted during the referral with second-review reports issued at our institution. We also assessed compliance with College of American Pathologists (CAP) requirements regarding inclusion of scientifically validated data elements (SVDE) in these pathology reports. METHODS: We retrospectively studied all 1,970 breast pathology referral cases reviewed during one calendar year. The variables studied were histologic classification; tumor grade, necrosis, size, margin status, lymphatic/vascular invasion, dermal involvement, and biomarker profile (ER, PR, and Her-2). Each variable was rated as "agree," "disagree," "missing information," or "not applicable." RESULTS: A significant discrepancy, defined as a disagreement that affected patient care, was found in 226 cases (11.47%). Additionally, in 418 resection cases (31.6%), some CAP-checklist specific required information was missing. The most common areas of significant discrepancy were histologic category (66 cases; 33%) and biomarker reporting (50 cases; 25%). The most problematic diagnostic categories were intraductal lesions, lobular carcinoma, metaplastic carcinomas, and phyllodestumors. Most disagreements in the biomarker-profile category were interpretive, but in 20% of discrepant cases, findings were supported by repeat immunohistochemical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the value and utility of obtaining a second opinion to optimize patient care. Changes in diagnoses obtained after second review should be interpreted and reported in a collaborative fashion, noting the benefit of a review from second pair of experienced eyes. Our results support the use of second review to ensure inclusion of CAP-required data elements in pathology reports.
Authors: Anna N A Tosteson; Qian Yang; Heidi D Nelson; Gary Longton; Samir S Soneji; Margaret Pepe; Berta Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Salvatore Piscuoglio; Charlotte Ky Ng; Melissa Murray; Kathleen A Burke; Marcia Edelweiss; Felipe C Geyer; Gabriel S Macedo; Akiko Inagaki; Anastasios D Papanastasiou; Luciano G Martelotto; Caterina Marchio; Raymond S Lim; Rafael A Ioris; Pooja K Nahar; Ino De Bruijn; Lillian Smyth; Muzaffar Akram; Dara Ross; John H Petrini; Larry Norton; David B Solit; Jose Baselga; Edi Brogi; Marc Ladanyi; Britta Weigelt; Jorge S Reis-Filho Journal: J Pathol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Christopher R Friese; Irina Bondarenko; Reshma Jagsi; Yun Li; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 33.006
Authors: E Heeg; Y A Civil; M A Hillen; C H Smorenburg; L A E Woerdeman; E J Groen; H A O Winter-Warnars; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Anna Na Tosteson; Margaret S Pepe; Gary M Longton; Heidi D Nelson; Berta Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Kimberly H Allison; Sara L Jackson; Donald L Weaver Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-06-22
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Margaret S Pepe; Patricia A Carney; Heidi D Nelson; Kimberly H Allison; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Ezgi Mercan; Linda G Shapiro; Tad T Brunyé; Thomas R Morgan; Donald L Weaver Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2017-03-10