Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology

A retrospective comparison of first and second opinion histopathology with patient outcomes in veterinary oncology cases (2011-2019)

Mandatory second opinion histopathology is common practice in human surgical pathology. It is intended to confirm the original diagnosis or identify clinically significant discrepancies, which could alter the course of disease, cost of treatment, patient management or prognosis. This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate agreement between first and second opinion histopathology cases, examine their correlation with natural history of disease and investigate the rationale for pursuing this test. Medical records from 2011 to 2019 were reviewed, identifying 109 cases where second opinion histopathology was sought. Reasons for seeking second opinion and clinical disease course were also reviewed to determine whether case progression favoured first or second opinion findings in cases of diagnostic disagreement. Diagnostic disagreement was found in 49.5% of cases. Complete diagnostic disagreement (a change in degree of malignancy or tumour type) occurred in 15.6% cases and partial disagreement (a change in tumour subtype, grade, margins and mitotic count) occurred in 33.9%. Major disagreement (a change in diagnosis resulting in alteration of treatment recommendations) occurred in 38.5% of cases. The most common reasons for seeking second opinion were an atypical/poorly differentiated tumour (31.2%; 34/109) or a discordant clinical picture (24.8%; 27/109). Among cases with any form of disagreement, natural history of disease favoured second opinion findings in 33.3%. The first opinion was favoured over the second in a single case. These findings reinforce previous literature supporting a role for second opinion histopathology in optimizing therapy and predicting outcomes in veterinary oncology, particularly in cases where diagnosis is in question based on the overall clinical picture.

Clinical Implication of Diagnostic and Histopathologic Discrepancies in Sinonasal Malignancies

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incidence of histopathologic diagnostic discrepancy for patients referred to our institution, identify pathologies susceptible to diagnostic error, and assess the impact on survival of histopathologic diagnostic discrepancies.

METHODS

Three hundred ninety-seven patients with sinonasal cancers were identified, and discordance between the outside pathologic report and MD Anderson Cancer Center pathologic report was assessed. Overall survival and disease-specific survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and log rank methods.

RESULTS

Discordance of major histopathologic diagnoses was present in 24% (97 of 397) of reports, with sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma, sarcoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma pathologies having the highest change in diagnosis (P < .01). A further 61% (244 of 397) had minor changes such as histologic grade, subtype, or stage, with sarcoma and neuroendocrine carcinoma pathologies being most susceptible to change (P < .02). Overall, the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) was reduced in patients with a major change in histopathologic diagnosis (59.2% vs. 70.2% (P = .02) and 72.9% vs. 81.2% (P = .02), respectively). Furthermore, patients with a major change in diagnosis and prior treatment experienced a significant reduction in 5-year OS (61.9% vs. 70.4%, P = .03 < .01) and DSS (72.4% vs. 81.5%, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Histopathological diagnosis of sinonasal tumors is complex and challenging given the rarity of the disease. Obtaining the correct diagnosis is important for treatment selection and survival. In histologies prone to misdiagnoses, obtaining a second opinion from experienced head and neck pathologists at a high-volume institution may potentially lead to a change in treatment recommendations that could result in improved survival in patients with sinonasal malignancies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 131:E1468-E1475, 2021.

Preoperative biopsies as predictor for the necessity of inguinal lymph node surgery in squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva-a retrospective tertiary center analysis

Purpose

Squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva (SQCV) is the fifth common cancer in women. Necessity of inguinal lymph node surgery depends on the depth of stromal invasion, inducing lymph node surgery, if depth of invasion is more than 1 mm. In this study we tested the prediction of stromal infiltration depth by measurements in preoperative biopsies.

Methods

We analyzed whether a different operative strategy in respect to lymph node surgery would have been chosen based on the pre- or postoperative depth of stromal invasion for each patient. Examination of infiltration depth in preoperative biopsies and surgical specimen were compared.

Results

In total 77 patients were included in this study. Of those 89.6% showed different depths of stromal invasion comparing the pre- and postoperative specimen. Within seventeen patients (22.1%) preoperative depth was 1 mm or less and a postoperative depth was > 1 mm.

Conclusion

We pointed, that only in 77.9% of the patients who should have undergo lymph node surgery based on the postoperative depth of infiltration underwent this procedure. Consequentially in 22.1% of the cases a second operation could not be prevented with a preoperative taken biopsy as indicator for the necessity of lymph node surgery.

Relevance of routine pathology review in cervical carcinoma

To determine the impact of pathology review on the management of patients with cervical carcinoma, 264 reports of pathology review from 230 patients referred to Erasmus MC (2010-2012) were studied retrospectively. Discrepancies between pathologic diagnoses were classified as 'major' if they led to changes in treatment, and as 'minor' where there was no change. Patient and tumor characteristics were analyzed to identify the factors influencing these discrepancies. Fifty-eight (25.2%) discrepancies were identified; 28 (12.2%) were major, these resulted frequently from missing essential information, or discordant assessment of tumor invasion. Pathology review prevented under-treatment of 3.5%, over-treatment of 1.3%, treatment for incorrect malignancy of 1.3%, and enabled definitive treatment of 6.1% of patients. This highlights the importance of pathology review for appropriate management. Major discrepancies were rare (1%) for patients with macroscopic tumor and histologic diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma (n = 100). For these patients, yield of pathology review may be limited.

Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer

Aim

To determine the incidence of discrepancy rate between the initial pathology diagnosis and referral diagnosis in women with gynaecological cancer.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was performed including all consecutive patients with gynaecological cancer referred and who underwent pathologic review between January 2013 and May 2017. Discrepancies were minor when future treatment was not altered or major when the treatment was modified.

Results

A total of 259 patients were included. The original diagnosis was ovarian cancer (n = 126, 48.6%), endometrial cancer (n = 84, 32.4%), cervical cancer (n = 43, 16.6%) and vulvar cancer (n = 6, 2.3%). Eighteen women (6.9%) had major discrepancies and 69 patients (26.6%) had minor discrepancies. The main reason for the minor discrepancy was tumour grade or histology subtype. Regarding ovarian cancer, 13 out of 16 patients had minor discrepancies at histology subtype among serous, endometrioid, mucinous or undifferentiated tumours. The main issue for the minor discrepancy in patients with cervical cancer was among different subtype of cervical adenocarcinoma. Minor discrepancies due to tumour grade were also observed in 14, 19, 8 and 3 patients with endometrial, ovarian, cervical and vulvar cancer, respectively.

Conclusions

A second pathology review also adds valid information in those cases with minor discrepancies leading to a difference in patients´ counselling regarding follow-up and prognosis.

The importance of re-examination with deep biopsies in diagnosing cervical malignancies despite multiple negative pathology reports: A case report

•

The role of gynecological examination in diagnosis genital cancer is important as in this case (a woman with stony cervix and frozen pelvis).

•

When we have frozen pelvis and fix stony cervix, taking multiple deep biopsies in spite of previous negative pathologic reports, is necessary.

•

Reviewing the slides by qualified pathologists can help us to achieve true diagnosis when we the physical exam does not match with histopatologic results.

•

Lymphoma should be always in our mind to remind the pathologists.

Introduction

Clinical symptoms of female genital tract lymphoma are often non-specific, and mimic other more common gynecological malignancies. Diagnosis can only be confirmed by histology.

Case presentation

We report the case of a 48-year-old multiparous woman who underwent subtotal hysterectomy because of enlarged myomatous uterus and persistent heavy vaginal bleeding. “2 months later”, postoperative pelvic and abdominal CT scan performed because of flank pain, revealed bilateral hydronephrosis. Pelvic and colposcopic exam and cervical biopsy under anesthesia showed benign histology, as reported by two pathologists. Referral to a third pathologist and immunohistochemical (IHC) exam revealed malignant lymphoproliferative disorder.

Conclusion

Despite multiple negative pathology reports of the cervical biopsies, bimanual pelvic exam with deep biopsies by a gynecologist, allowed accurate final diagnosis of this unusual case.

Improved cytodiagnostics and quality of patient care through double reading of selected cases by an expert cytopathologist

Double reading may be a valuable tool for improving the quality of patient care by restoring diagnostic errors before final sign-out, but standard double reading would significantly increase costs of pathology. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of routine double reading of defined categories of clinical cytology specimens by specialized cytopathologists. Specialized cytopathologists routinely re-diagnosed blinded defined categories of clinical cytology specimens that had been signed out by routine pathologists from January 2012 up to December 2013. Major and minor discordance rates between initial and expert diagnoses were determined, and both diagnoses were validated by comparison with same-site histological follow-up. Initial and expert diagnoses were concordant in 131/218 specimens (60.1 %). Major and minor discordances were present in 28 (12.8 %) and 59 (27.1 %) specimens, respectively. Pleural fluid, thyroid and urine specimens showed the highest major discordance rates (19.4, 19.2 and 16.7 %, respectively). Histological follow-up (where possible) supported the expert diagnosis in 95.5 % of specimens. Our implemented double reading strategy of defined categories of cytology specimens showed major discordance in 12.8 % of specimens. The expert diagnosis was supported in 95.5 % of discordant cases where histological follow-up was available. This indicates that this double reading strategy is worthwhile and contributes to better cytodiagnostics and quality of patient care, especially for suspicious pleural fluid, thyroid and urine specimens. Our results emphasize that cytopathology is a subspecialization of pathology and requires specialized cytopathologists.

Pathology slide review in vulvar cancer does not change patient management

Hypothesis. Pathology slide review in vulvar cancer is only necessary in a restricted number of cases. Methods. A retrospective chart review of all cases of vulvar cancer treated in a tertiary centre between January 1, 2000, and April 1, 2006. Histopathology reports from the referring and tertiary centre were compared. Results. 121 pathology reports from 112 patients were reviewed. Of the original reports, 56% were deemed adequate, commenting on tumor type and depth of infiltration; of the reviews, 83% were adequate. Conclusion. There were no discrepancies that influenced patient management. We suggest that vulvar cancer biopsies need to be reviewed only when the tumor is less than 10 mm in linear extension, when the infiltration is 1 mm or less, when there is no residual tumor on inspection, and in any nonsquamous cancer.

Accelerating type-specific ovarian carcinoma research: Calculator for Ovarian Subtype Prediction (COSP) is a reliable high-throughput tool for case review

AIMS

The recent recognition that ovarian carcinoma is composed of five distinct disease entities has served to increase the value of accurate histotyping. Reliable identification of histotypes is essential for the success of studies testing novel therapies, as well as for biomarker discovery research. The aim of this study was to examine the utility of a nine-marker immunohistochemical (IHC) panel, designated the Calculator for Ovarian Subtype Prediction (COSP), to reliably reproduce the consensus diagnosis of two expert gynaecological pathologists.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 423 cases from the AGO-OVAR11 trial were evaluated using the COSP IHC panel, and compared to original diagnoses from >100 local contributing pathologists and independent expert gynaecopathology review. The overall concordance between COSP and expert review was 89%; in cases where a local pathologist's diagnosis was confirmed by COSP, the expert gynaecopathologist also agreed in 97.5% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of COSP into a high-throughput diagnostic review algorithm will decrease the need for expert review by identifying a small number of difficult cases that truly require expert review. This modification will serve to increase the efficiency of the diagnostic review process, which will probably serve to reduce operational costs and expedite translational studies on ovarian carcinoma.

Standards, Options et Recommandations 2004 pour une bonne pratique de la consultation personnelle et de la relecture en anatomie et cytologie pathologiques en cancérologie (rapport intégral)

CONTEXT

The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, which started in 1993, is a collaboration between the French Federation of Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), the 20 French Regional Cancer Centres, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

To develop good practice guidelines for second opinion in anatomic and surgical pathology in oncology, in collaboration with the French Society for Anatomic and Surgical Pathology.

METHOD

The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts who define the CPGs using the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. Once the guideline has been defined, the document is submitted to independent reviewers for review.

RESULTS

The working group defined four types of second opinions in anatomic and surgical pathology: personal consultation, inter-institutional consultation, peer review consultation for a scientific survey, intra-departmental consultation in the context of quality control. The main recommendation is that second opinion should respect the patients' rights and the medical ethics code. For each of the four situations defined recommendations have been developed, taking this principle into consideration.

Tumor board in gynecologic oncology

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the influence of a weekly tumor conference on the management of patient care in a gynecologic oncology service.

METHODS

The study utilizes all patients discussed in the gyncologic oncology tumor conference at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) from January 1, 1998, to January 1, 2001. Patient's information (age, race, cancer site, stage, new cancer versus recurrent) was abstracted from the minutes and attendant log of the tumor board. We compared the pathology and diagnosis for each patient as stated both before and after presentation at the tumor board. A discrepancy is defined as a change in tumor site, stage, or treatment, resulting from findings discussed at tumor board meetings. Major discrepancy is defined as changes that affect patient care. Minor discrepancy is defined as changes that do not affect patient care.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 459 cases were discussed (391 new cancer, 68 recurrent cancer). At each tumor conference, we discussed a mean of 3.7 cases (range 1-9, standard deviation 1.68). Thirty-two cases (6.9%) showed discrepancies with 23 major discrepancies and nine minor discrepancies. As a result of the tumor board, the two most common therapeutic changes were the addition of chemotherapy and surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a gynecologic oncology tumor board added clinical information available to pathologists, thereby alters final diagnosis and affects patient medical care.

Slide review in gynecologic oncology ensures completeness of reporting and diagnostic accuracy

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed patient records in our tertiary care teaching hospital to assess the value of the mandatory slide review policy in gynecologic oncology with emphasis on completeness of reports.

METHODS

Cases reviewed between October 2001 to September 2002 were studied. Clinical information was gathered from discussions at the weekly tumor board and from chart review. The standardized reporting guidelines in benchmark surgical pathology textbooks were used to assess the completeness of original pathology reports of excisional specimens. Diagnostic discrepancies were classified as major if the resultant change led to alteration of management or minor if it did not.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-one cases were reviewed; 173 biopsies and 178 excisional specimens. Only 140 (78.7%) of the original pathology reports of the latter group conformed to standardized reporting guidelines. Of the 38 incomplete reports, 18 were missing critical information necessary for planning of further therapy, representing 10.1% of reports of all excisional specimens. We agreed with the original diagnosis in 252 cases (71.8%). Minor discrepancies were noted in 70 (19.9%) and major discrepancies in 29 cases (8.3%). No major discrepancy resulted from reviewing any of the vulvar specimens or cases that were already reviewed by gynecologic pathologists of other academic institutes.

CONCLUSION

Mandatory slide review in gynecologic oncology is an important component in the management of gynecologic cancer patients because it completes reporting on missing parameters required for planning subsequent therapy in 10.1% of cases and recognizes discrepancies altering management in 8.3% of patients.

Clinical significance of performing immunohistochemistry on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer coming to a national comprehensive cancer center for treatment or second opinion

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is an important adjunctive test in diagnostic surgical pathology. We studied the clinical significance and outcomes in performing IHC on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer who are coming to the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC), a National Cancer Institute designated National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCC), for treatment and/or second opinion. We reviewed all the outside surgical pathology slide review cases seen at the FCCC for 1998 and 1999 in which IHC was performed. Cases were divided into the following: confirmation of outside diagnoses without and with prior IHC performed by the outside institution (groups A and B, respectively) and cases with a significant change in diagnosis without and with prior IHC performed by the outside institution (groups C and D, respectively). During 1998 and 1999, 6678 slide review cases were reviewed at the FCCC with an overall significant change in diagnosis in 213 cases (3.2%). IHC was performed on 186 of 6678 (2.7%) slide review cases with confirmation of the outside diagnosis in 152 (81.7%) cases and a significant change in diagnosis in 34 (18.3%) cases. Patient follow-up was obtained in 32 of 34 (94.1%) cases with a significant change in diagnosis (groups C and D), which confirmed the correctness of our diagnosis in 26 of 27 cases (96%; in five cases follow-up was inconclusive). We repeated the identical antibodies performed by the outside institutions in group D (37 antibodies) and group B (133 antibodies) with different results in 48.6% and 13.5%, respectively (overall nonconcordance 21.2%). In group D additional antibody tests beyond that performed by the outside institution were needed in 88.8% of cases to make a change of diagnosis. In the setting of a NCCC, reperforming and/or performing IHC on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer is not a duplication of effort or misuse of resources. Repeating and/or performing IHC in this setting is important in the care and management of patients with cancer.

Referrals for second opinion in surgical pathology: implications for management of cancer patients in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To compare patterns of outgoing referral practice from one large district general hospital histopathology (cellular pathology) laboratory to other pathology laboratories.

DESIGN

Referral cases for the relevant years were identified via hand searching of consultant referral files and from a central laboratory referral file. A comparison was made of the number and nature of pathology case referrals made to other laboratories in year 1990 with those made in year 1998.

SETTING

Large district general hospital pathology laboratory in the UK.

RESULTS

A statistically significant increase in the number of cases referred for a second opinion to an outside pathologist was noted, from 60 to 128 cases, representing an increase from 0.35 to 0.56% of total laboratory specimen workload (P=0.0034). In 36 (31.0%) of 116 cases from 1998 the diagnosis was altered, or a confident diagnosis was made where previously there was no definite diagnosis. Five cases with a benign in-house diagnosis had a malignant second opinion diagnosis and five cases with a malignant in-house diagnosis had a benign second opinion diagnosis. The largest single category of referred cases was for classification/grading of malignant lymphoma, comprising 27 (23%) of cases. The mean time delay between receipt of a specimen in the laboratory and issuing of the final report was 22 days (range 7-60 days). Only 25% of the referred cases were reported within 14 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Referrals are an important component of pathology practice. In the UK much of this activity is performed on a 'grace and favour' basis between laboratories despite the fact that referral cases are often complex and time consuming for the recipient pathologist and laboratory. Histopathology referrals do not seem to be adequately costed and accounted for in interinstitutional service level agreements within the UK National Health Service.

An analysis of the impact of pathology review in gynecologic cancer

PURPOSE

To analyze the impact of pathology review in gynecologic malignancies.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

For all new gynecologic patients seen between December 2, 1993 and January 4, 1996, we conducted a retrospective chart review to determine if a pathology review by the institute's consultant pathologist changed the diagnosis, and if so whether the change altered patient management. A total of 514 patients were seen, of whom 120 had cervical cancer, 226 had endometrial cancer, 122 had a primary ovarian or peritoneal malignancy, 9 had a vaginal malignancy, 28 had vulvar cancer, and 9 had a miscellaneous gynecologic malignancy.

RESULTS

On pathology review the diagnosis changed for 200 of 599 specimens (33%). This altered management for 63 of 514 patients (12%). For patients with cervical cancer, the grade of tumor was the main change in pathologic diagnosis, with occasional change in the presence of lymph vascular invasion. These did not translate into patient management alterations. Eight patients (1.5%) had management alterations. The changes in depth of invasion and vascular invasion altered management for 3 patients. Changes in pap smears resulted in two management alterations, and changes in histologic diagnoses altered management for 3 cases. For endometrial primaries the changes in pathologic diagnosis included grade, depth of invasion, and the presence of cervical involvement. This did alter management in 40 cases (8%). For the ovarian malignancies, the main changes were grade, extent of disease, or histologic classification, some of which (10 patients, 2%) resulted in altered management. One patient with a vaginal lesion had the diagnosis changed, which did alter management. Of the patients diagnosed with vulvar cancer, the pathologic diagnosis changed for 11 patients. This included changes in grade and depth of invasion. This altered management of 2 patients. The remaining miscellaneous gynecologic malignancies had only two diagnosis changes that altered management.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathologic review of gynecologic malignancies is justified as it can alter patient management. In addition, the process facilitates cooperation of the multidisciplinary team and provides a valuable educational forum to enhance patient care.

Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology: routine or selective?

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to assess the cost/benefit ratio for interinstitution pathology consultation (IPC) and to identify the types of specimens with little or no risk of diagnostic error in order to reduce the cost.

METHODS

All gynecologic oncology referrals having IPC from 1993 to 1998 were reviewed. Each case was evaluated by comparing both the original and the consulted pathology reports. A discrepancy was major if it led to treatment alteration. A minor discrepancy was defined as differences without clinical consequences. Consultation error was determined by comparison with the final diagnosis and clinical data obtained from the records. The cost per review was adjusted to 1998 dollars for all cases over the 5-year study period. Statistical data were obtained by Fisher's exact test and Pearson's correlation test.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-nine pathology specimens from 498 patients were analyzed in this study. The major discrepancy rate was 6.5% and the minor discrepancy rate was 12.5%. Cytological specimens accounted for no major discrepancy and 13 minor discrepancies compared to 37 major and 58 minor discrepancies in histological specimens. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.003). Consultation errors occurred in 5 cases with no alteration of clinical care. By excluding cervical and vaginal smears and cervical biopsy specimens in cases with clinically gross tumors, the cost can be reduced by 25% with no detriment to the clinical management.

CONCLUSIONS

The types of specimens that do not need consultative pathology review include (1) cervical biopsy specimens in those patients with gross tumors and (2) cervical and vaginal smears.