Evidence-based principles and practices in pathology: selected problem areas

Evidence-based pathology: systematic literature reviews as the basis for guidelines and best practices

CONTEXT

Evidence-based medicine has been proposed as a new paradigm for the identification and evaluation of medical information. Best available evidence or data are identified and used as the basis for the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients. Evidence-based pathology has adapted basic evidence-based medicine concepts to the specific needs of pathology and laboratory medicine.

OBJECTIVES

To briefly review the history and basic concepts of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based pathology, describe how to perform and interpret systematic reviews, and discuss how to integrate best evidence into guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC) and Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, New York) were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based pathology provides methodology to evaluate the quality of information published in pathology journals and apply it to the diagnosis of tissue samples and other tests from individual patients. Information is gathered through the use of systematic reviews, using a method that is less biased and more comprehensive than ad hoc literature searches. Published data are classified into evidence levels to provide readers with a quick impression about the quality and probable clinical validity of available information. Best available evidence is combined with personal experience for the formulation of evidence-based, rather than opinion-based, guidelines that address specific practice needs.

Unison or cacophony: postgraduate training in pathology in Europe

With the free movement of people in the European Union, medical mobility has increased significantly. This is notably the case for disciplines for which shortage of well-trained staff has occurred. Pathology is among those specialties and effectively the discipline is confronted with a striking increase in mobility among trainees and qualified specialists. The presumption underlying unlimited mobility is that the competencies of the medical specialists in the European countries are more or less equal, including significant similarities in the postgraduate training programs. In order to assess whether reality corresponds with this presumption, we conducted a survey of the content and practice requirements of the curricula in the EU and affiliated countries. The results indicate a striking heterogeneity in the training program content and practice requirements. To name a few elements: duration of the training program varied between 4 and 6 years; the number of autopsies required varied between none at all and 300; the number of biopsies required varied between none at all and 15,000. We conclude that harmonization of training outcomes in Europe is a goal that needs to be pursued. This will be difficult to reach through harmonization of training programs, as these are co-determined by political, cultural, and administrative factors, difficult to influence. Harmonization might be attained by defining the general and specific competencies at the end of training and subsequent testing them through a test to which all trainees in Europe are subjected.

Medicolegal liability in surgical pathology: a consideration of underlying causes and selected pertinent concepts

Malpractice actions against surgical pathologists are still relatively uncommon, but they have increased in frequency over time and are associated with sizable indemnity figures. This discussion categorizes areas of liability in surgical pathology into three groups: those that represent health system flaws (problems with specimen identification, or transportation, or both; lack of clinical information or erroneous information; sampling effects and defects; and poorly reproducible or poorly defined diagnostic or prognostic criteria), others that exist at the interface between the system and individuals (allowing clinicians to bypass pathologic review of referred specimens; acceding to clinical demands for inadvisable procedures; and working in a disruptive environment), and truly individual errors by pathologists (lapses in reasoning; deficiencies concerning continuity in the laboratory; invalid assumptions regarding recipients of surgical pathology reports; over-reliance on the results of "special" tests; and problems with peer consultation). Finally, two important topic areas are discussed that commonly enter into lawsuits filed against surgical pathologists; namely, "delay in diagnosis" of malignant neoplasms and "failure to provide adequate prognostic information." Based on a review of the pertinent literature, we conclude that the clinical courses of most common malignancies are not affected in a significant manner by delays in diagnosis. Moreover, the practice of using "personalized external validity" for supposedly prognostic tests is examined, with the resulting opinion that prognostication of tumor behavior in individual patients is not reliable using anything but anatomic staging systems.

Original research in pathology: judgment, or evidence-based medicine?

Pathology is both a medical specialty and an investigative scientific discipline, concerned with understanding the essential nature of human disease. Ultimately, pathology is accountable as well, as measured by the accuracy of our diagnoses and the resultant patient care outcomes. As such, we must consider the evidence base underlying our practices. Within the realm of Laboratory Medicine, extensive attention has been given to testing accuracy and precision. Critical examination of the evidence base supporting the clinical use of specific laboratory tests or technologies is a separate endeavor, to which specific attention must be given. In the case of anatomic pathology and more specifically surgical pathology, the expertise required to render a diagnosis is derived foremost from experience, both personal and literature-based. In the first instance, knowledge of the linkage between one's own diagnoses and individual patient outcomes is required, to validate the role of one's own interpretations in the clinical course of patients. Experience comes from seeing this linkage first hand, from which hopefully comes wisdom and, ultimately, good clinical judgment. In the second instance, reading the literature and learning from experts is required. Only a minority of the relevant literature is published in pathology journals to which one may subscribe. A substantial portion of major papers relevant to the practice of anatomic pathology are published in collateral clinical specialty journals devoted to specific disease areas or organs. Active effort is therefore required to seek out the literature beyond the domain of pathology journals. In examining the published literature, the essential question then becomes: Does the practice of anatomic pathology fulfill the tenets of 'evidence-based medicine' (EBM)? If the pinnacle of EBM is 'systematic review of randomized clinical trials, with or without meta-analysis', then anatomic pathology falls far short. Our published literature is largely observational in nature, with reports of case series (with or without statistical analysis) constituting the majority of our 'evidence base'. Moreover, anatomic pathology is subject to 'interobserver variation', and potentially to 'error'. Taken further, individual interpretation of tissue samples is not an objective endeavor, and it is not easy to fulfill the role of a 'gold standard'. Both for rendering of an overall interpretation, and for providing the semi-quantitative and quantitative numerical 'scores' which support evidence-based clinical treatment algorithms, the Pathologist has to exercise a high level of interpretive judgment. Nevertheless, the contribution of anatomic pathology to 'EBM' is remarkably strong. To the extent that our judgmental interpretations become data, our tissue interpretations become the arbiters of patient care management decisions. In a more global sense, we support highly successful cancer screening programs, and play critical roles in the multidisciplinary management of complex patients. The true error is for the clinical practitioners of 'EBM' to forget the contribution to the supporting evidence base of the physicians that are Anatomic Pathologists. Finally, the academic productivity of pathology faculty who operate in the clinical realm must be considered. A survey of six North American academic pathology departments reveals that 26% of all papers published in 2005 came from 'unfunded' clinical faculty. While it is likely that their academic productivity is lower than that of 'funded' research faculty, the contribution of clinical faculty to the knowledge base for the practice of modern medicine, and to the academic reputation of the department, must not be overlooked. The ability of clinical faculty in academic departments of pathology to pursue original scholarship must be supported if our specialty is to retain its preeminence as an investigative scientific discipline in the age of EBM.