Urologic oncology · 2017
Testicular cancer: The usage of central review for pathology diagnosis of orchiectomy specimens.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Harari Saul E, Sassoon Daniel J, Priemer David S, Jacob Joseph M, Eble John N, Caliò Anna, Grignon David J, Idrees Mohammed, Albany Costantine, Masterson Timothy A, Hanna Nasser H, Foster Richard S, Ulbright Thomas M, Einhorn Lawrence H, Cheng Liang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Radical orchiectomy specimens present a unique set of challenges for pathology assessment owing to their rarity and complexity. This study compares second opinion pathology reports generated at a single, large academic institution to primary reports from outside hospitals.
METHODS: A database search was conducted for orchiectomy cases that were sent to our institution for management of testicular cancer from 2014 to 2015. Cases sent for consultation without a finalized diagnosis from the outside hospitals were excluded. A total of 221 consecutive cases were evaluated for comparison of final diagnoses between the outside institution and central pathology review.
RESULTS: This study revealed significant discrepancy involving multiple parameters between original and second opinion pathology reports. Of 221 cases of germ cell tumors assessed, 31% showed some discrepancy of histologic subtype. Overall, reporting of lymphovascular invasion changed in 22% of cases; of those, initially called positive 23% were changed to negative and of those initially called negative 12% were changed to positive. Although the overall discrepancy for spermatic cord invasion was 9%, an initial positive diagnosis was negated 35% of the time. The pathologic stage was altered in 23% of cases, mostly secondary to differences interpreting lymphovascular and spermatic cord invasion.
CONCLUSION: Pathologists evaluating orchiectomy specimens should be aware of the major pitfalls in classification and staging, many of which may affect patient management.
METHODS: A database search was conducted for orchiectomy cases that were sent to our institution for management of testicular cancer from 2014 to 2015. Cases sent for consultation without a finalized diagnosis from the outside hospitals were excluded. A total of 221 consecutive cases were evaluated for comparison of final diagnoses between the outside institution and central pathology review.
RESULTS: This study revealed significant discrepancy involving multiple parameters between original and second opinion pathology reports. Of 221 cases of germ cell tumors assessed, 31% showed some discrepancy of histologic subtype. Overall, reporting of lymphovascular invasion changed in 22% of cases; of those, initially called positive 23% were changed to negative and of those initially called negative 12% were changed to positive. Although the overall discrepancy for spermatic cord invasion was 9%, an initial positive diagnosis was negated 35% of the time. The pathologic stage was altered in 23% of cases, mostly secondary to differences interpreting lymphovascular and spermatic cord invasion.
CONCLUSION: Pathologists evaluating orchiectomy specimens should be aware of the major pitfalls in classification and staging, many of which may affect patient management.