The clinical impact of pathological review on selection the treatment modality for localized prostate cancer in candidates for brachytherapy monotherapy

Clinical and Financial Implications of Second-Opinion Surgical Pathology Review

OBJECTIVES

Second-opinion pathology review identifies clinically significant diagnostic discrepancies for some patients. Discrepancy rates and laboratory-specific costs in a single health care system for patients referred from regional affiliates to a comprehensive cancer center ("main campus") have not been reported.

METHODS

Main campus second-opinion pathology cases for 740 patients from eight affiliated hospitals during 2016 to 2018 were reviewed. Chart review was performed to identify changes in care due to pathology review. To assess costs of pathology interpretation, reimbursement rates for consultation Current Procedural Terminology billing codes were compared with codes that would have been used had the cases originated at the main campus.

RESULTS

Diagnostic discrepancies were identified in 104 (14.1%) patients, 30 (4.1%) of which resulted in a change in care. In aggregate, reimbursement for affiliate cases was 65.6% of the reimbursement for the same cases had they originated at the main campus. High-volume organ systems with low relative consultation reimbursement included gynecologic, breast, and thoracic.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventable diagnostic errors are reduced by pathology review for patients referred within a single health care system. Although the resulting changes in care potentially lead to overall cost savings, the financial value of referral pathology review could be improved.

Histopathological re-evaluations of biopsies in prostate cancer: a nationwide observational study

BACKGROUND

Grading prostate biopsies has an important role in determining treatment strategy. Histopathological evaluations suffer from interobserver variability and therefore biopsies may be re-evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To provide insight into the extent of, characteristics associated with and clinical implications of prostate biopsy re-evaluations in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) by biopsy between October 2015 and April 2016 identified through the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. The proportion of re-evaluations was assessed and characteristics were compared between patients with and without biopsy re-evaluation. Interobserver concordance of ISUP grade and EAU prognostic risk classification was determined by calculating Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Biopsy re-evaluation was performed in 172 (3.3%) of 5214 patients. Primary reason for re-evaluation in patients treated with curative intent was referral to another hospital. Most referred patients treated with curative intent (n = 1856) had no re-evaluation (93.0%, n = 1727). Patients with biopsy re-evaluation were younger and underwent more often prostatectomy compared to patients without re-evaluation. The disagreement rate for ISUP grade was 26.1% and interobserver concordance was substantial (κ-weighted = 0.74). Re-evaluation resulted in 21.1% (n = 14) of patients with localised PCa in a different prognostic risk group. More tumours were downgraded (57.1%) than upgraded (42.9%). Interobserver concordance was very good (κ _weighted = 0.85).

CONCLUSION

Pathology review of prostate biopsies is infrequently requested by clinicians in the Netherlands but in a non-negligible minority of patients with localised PCa the pathology review led to a change in prognostic risk group which might impact their treatment.

Assessment of Histological Remission in Ulcerative Colitis: Discrepancies Between Daily Practice and Expert Opinion

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Histological remission [HR] is a potential treatment target in ulcerative colitis [UC]. Limited 'real world' data are available on the reliability of histological scoring when assessing minimal histological inflammation. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of UC histological scores in colonic biopsies showing mucosal healing [MH] and limited histological inflammation, and to compare the 'daily practice' histological assessment with expert reviews by gastrointestinal [GI] pathologists.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-centre study. Colonic biopsies from UC patients with MH [Mayo score ≤ 1] were included. All biopsies assessed in daily practice were reassessed by three blinded GI pathologists using three histological scores (Geboes score [GS], Riley score [RS], Harpaz [Gupta] Index [HGI]) and a global visual scale [GVS]. We evaluated inter- and intra-observer variation between GI pathologists and correlations between scores including the initial histological assessment using Cronbach's alpha and Spearman rho analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 270 biopsies from 39 UC patients were included. The inter-observer concordance for all histological indexes was substantial to almost perfect [GS 0.84; HGI 0.61; GVS 0.74, RS 0.91]. Correlation between the RS and GS was almost perfect [R = 0.86], but we found no correlation between the primary histological assessment and reassessment by GI pathologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Current UC histological scores reliably assess limited histological inflammation in UC patients. The discrepancy between the initial histological assessment and the reassessment by dedicated GI pathologists suggests a gap between daily practice and academic expertise. This issue may limit the implementation of HR as a treatment target for UC in daily practice.

Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

CONTEXT

Additional reviews of diagnostic surgical and cytology cases have been shown to detect diagnostic discrepancies.

OBJECTIVE

To develop, through a systematic review of the literature, recommendations for the review of pathology cases to detect or prevent interpretive diagnostic errors.

DESIGN

The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center in association with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the role of case reviews in surgical pathology and cytology. A literature search was conducted to gather data on the review of cases in surgical pathology and cytology.

RESULTS

The panel drafted 5 recommendations, with strong agreement from open comment period participants ranging from 87% to 93%. The recommendations are: (1) anatomic pathologists should develop procedures for the review of selected pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors; (2) anatomic pathologists should perform case reviews in a timely manner to avoid having a negative impact on patient care; (3) anatomic pathologists should have documented case review procedures that are relevant to their practice setting; (4) anatomic pathologists should continuously monitor and document the results of case reviews; and (5) if pathology case reviews show poor agreement within a defined case type, anatomic pathologists should take steps to improve agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence exists that case reviews detect errors; therefore, the expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists develop procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect disagreements and potential interpretive errors, in order to improve the quality of patient care.

Results of central pathology review of prostatic biopsies in a contemporary series from a phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SHIP0804)

To investigate contemporary rates of variation in the biopsy Gleason grading in prostate cancer, between local and central pathologists, based on central review of the pathological slides from Seed and Hormone for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer (SHIP) 0804, a phase III, multicenter, randomized, controlled study. From April 2008 to May 2011, 18 Japanese institutions participated. All H&E slides were reviewed independently, without clinical information, and a tumor grade was assigned according to the modified Gleason grading system proposed by the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). Prostate biopsy specimens of 642 cases were available for evaluation. An exact concordance rate of Gleason score (GS) between local and central pathologists was determined to be 65.3%; with the under-grading and over-grading of grades to be 14.6% and 20.1%, respectively. The central review resulted in numbers of tumor-bearing cores reassigned in 99 of 616 cases in which such information by the local pathologists was available (16.1%). Discordance in biopsy Gleason grading was still found in one third of the cases in the SHIP0804 study. This information is valuable in extrapolating the diagnostic error range in contemporary clinical studies conducted without central pathological review.