Diagnostic issues in second opinion consultations in prostate pathology

Histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions: blinded and nonblinded second opinions offer similar improvement in diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of second opinions in the diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions have examined blinded second opinions, which do not reflect usual clinical practice. The current study, conducted in the USA, investigated both blinded and nonblinded second opinions for their impact on diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

In total, 100 melanocytic skin biopsy cases, ranging from benign to invasive melanoma, were interpreted by 74 dermatopathologists. Subsequently, 151 dermatopathologists performed nonblinded second and third reviews. We compared the accuracy of single reviewers, second opinions obtained from independent, blinded reviewers and second opinions obtained from sequential, nonblinded reviewers. Accuracy was defined with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis.

RESULTS

The mean case-level diagnostic accuracy of single reviewers was 65.3% (95% CI 63.4-67.2%). Second opinions arising from sequential, nonblinded reviewers significantly improved accuracy to 69.9% (95% CI 68.0-71.7%; P < 0.001). Similarly, second opinions arising from blinded reviewers improved upon the accuracy of single reviewers (69.2%; 95% CI 68.0-71.7%). Nonblinded reviewers were more likely than blinded reviewers to give diagnoses in the same diagnostic classes as the first diagnosis. Nonblinded reviewers tended to be more confident when they agreed with previous reviewers, even with inaccurate diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

We found that both blinded and nonblinded second reviewers offered a similar modest improvement in diagnostic accuracy compared with single reviewers. Obtaining second opinions with knowledge of previous reviews tends to generate agreement among reviews, and may generate unwarranted confidence in an inaccurate diagnosis. Combining aspects of both blinded and nonblinded review in practice may leverage the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages of each approach. Specifically, a second pathologist could give an initial diagnosis blinded to the results of the first pathologist, with subsequent nonblinded discussion between the two pathologists if their diagnoses differ.

The Utility of Expert Diagnosis in Surgical Neuropathology: Analysis of Consultations Reviewed at 5 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Institutions

The aim of this study was to characterize the type and degree of discrepancies between non-expert and expert diagnoses of CNS tumors to identify the value of consultations in surgical neuropathology. Neuropathology experts from 5 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions participated in the review of 1281 consultations selected based on inclusion criteria. The consultation cases were re-reviewed at the NCCN headquarters to determine concordance with the original diagnoses. Among all consultations, 249 (19.4%) were submitted for expert diagnoses without final diagnoses from the submitting institution. Within the remaining 1032 patients, the serious/major discrepancy rate was 4.8%, and less serious and minor discrepancies were seen in 19.4% of the cases. The discrepancy rate was higher among patients who were referred to NCCN institutions for consultation compared to those who were referred for treatment only. The discrepancy rates, patient demographics, type of consultations and submitting institutions varied among participating NCCN institutions. Expert consultations identified a subset of cases with significant diagnostic discrepancies, and constituted the initial diagnoses in some cases. These data indicate that expert consultations in glial tumors and all types of pediatric CNS tumors can improve accurate diagnosis and enable appropriate management.

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.

Malignant glomus tumor of the lung with multiple metastasis: a rare case report

Malignant glomus tumor, or glomangiosarcoma, is a very rare mesenchymal neoplasm that, when seen, occurs in visceral organs. Despite having histologic features of malignancy, these tumors usually do not metastasize. However, when metastasis occurs, this disease is often fatal. Our report presents the case of a 59-year-old female patient with a highly aggressive and widely metastatic glomus tumor of the lung.

Current perspectives on Gleason grading of prostate cancer

The 5-tier Gleason grading system for prostate cancer, introduced in 1966, has been proven to be one of the main independent predictors of prostate cancer outcome. This review addresses interobserver concordance in Gleason grading; the persistence of grading discrepancies with frequent upgrading from the biopsy to the prostatectomy specimen; the 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathologists' modifications to Gleason grading; the impact of this modified grading on grade migration and outcome prediction; and molecular correlates of cancer morphology. Data from the most recent years are emphasized.

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

AIM

To evaluate the impact of pathological review by pathologist with genitourinary expertise (PGU) on treatment modality of localized prostate cancer, we analyzed Gleason grade (GG) migration and the final treatment decision in a cohort of patients designated for permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB).

METHODS

From February 2005 to July 2010, a total of 247 patients with localized prostate cancer diagnosed by local community hospitals were referred to our hospital for PPB monotheray. All pathologic slides of prostate biopsies were reviewed by a single PGU. Patients ultimately selected their treatment modality from our recommendations based on the review. Indication for PPB monotherapy was the NCCN classification of patients as good or intermediate risk. In addition, patient with Primary GG 4 was regarded as unadapted case.

RESULTS

Six cases were reinterpreted as no cancer (2.4%). GG change occurred in 94 cases (38.1%) of which 77 (81.9%) were upgraded and 17 (18.1%) downgraded. Of the total 247 patients, 86 (34.8%) changed therapies and 30 (12.1%) did so based on the pathologic slide review.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathological review of biopsy specimens is mandatory for the determination of treatment modality especially in candidates for monotherapy of permanent prostate brachytherapy.