Data Set for the Reporting of Carcinomas of the Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses: Explanations and Recommendations of the Guidelines From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting

The value of a specialized second-opinion pathological diagnosis for oral and maxillofacial lesions

OBJECTIVES

An error in the diagnosis of an oral or maxillofacial lesion could potentially be detrimental to a patient's prognosis and management. Major discrepancies between the initial and subsequent diagnoses of head and neck pathologies range from 7 to 53%. This study determined the rate of discrepancies found in the diagnoses of oral and maxillofacial lesions after a second opinion in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted by oral and maxillofacial pathology consultants to review all cases referred for a second opinion to the oral and maxillofacial pathology laboratory between January 2015 and December 2020. If the second-opinion diagnosis matched the original diagnosis, this was described as "agreement." If the second-opinion diagnosis did not match the original diagnosis but would not change the management or prognosis of a patient, this was classified as a "minor disagreement." If the second-opinion diagnosis resulted in the changing of a patient's management or prognosis, this was categorized as a "major disagreement." Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare data between original and second-opinion diagnoses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 138 cases, 59 (43%) had an initial diagnosis and a second-opinion diagnosis that were in major disagreement. The most common tumor for which there was a major disagreement was squamous cell carcinoma. No single factor influenced the occurrence of major disagreements.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation reiterates the importance of obtaining a second opinion from a specialist in oral and maxillofacial pathology to improve the diagnostic accuracy for lesions. A formal system for this step, in addition to the obtaining of adequate clinical and radiographic information about a patient, is mandatory for the review of difficult cases.

Development of head and neck pathology in Europe

This review gives a brief history of the development of head and neck pathology in Europe from a humble beginning in the 1930s to the explosive activities the last 15 years. During the decades before the introduction of immunohistochemistry in the 1980s, head and neck pathology grew as a subspeciality in many European countries. In the late 1940s, the Institute of Laryngology and Otology with its own pathology laboratory was founded in London, and in 1964 the World Health Organization (WHO) International Reference Centre for the Histological Classification of Salivary Tumours was established at the Bland-Sutton Institute of Pathology, also in London. International collaboration, and very much so in Europe, led to the publication of the first WHO Classification of Salivary Gland Tumours in 1972. In the 1960s, a salivary gland register was organised in Hamburg and in Cologne the microlaryngoscopy was invented enabling microscopic endoscopic examination and rather shortly afterwards a carbon dioxide laser attached to the microscope became established and laryngeal lesions could be treated by laser vaporisation. During the last three decades, the use of immunohistochemistry supplemented with cytogenetic and refined molecular techniques has greatly facilitated the pathological diagnostics of head and neck lesions and has had a huge impact on research. Collaboration between different European centres has drastically increased partly due to establishment of scientific societies such as the Head and Neck Working Group (HNWG) within the European Society of Pathology and the International Head and Neck Scientific Group (IHNSG). A very large number of European pathologists have contributed to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th WHO books, and are involved in the upcoming 5th edition. Accredited educational meetings and courses are nowadays regularly arranged in Europe. Numerous textbooks on head and neck pathology have been written and edited by European pathologists. The increased collaboration has created larger series of tumours for research and new entities, mainly defined by their genetic abnormalities, are continuously emerging from Europe, particularly regarding salivary gland neoplasms and "undifferentiated" sinonasal tumours. These findings have led to a better and more precise classification and open the possibilities for new treatment strategies.

Best Practice in Surgical Treatment of Malignant Head and Neck Tumors

Purpose of review: Defining the best practice of surgical care for patients affected by malignant head and neck tumors is of great importance. In this review we aim to describe the evolution of “best practice” guidelines in the context of quality-of-care measures and discuss current evidence on “best practice” for the surgical treatment of cancers of the sino-nasal tract, skull base, aero-digestive tract, and the neck.

Recent findings: Current evidence based on certain structure and outcome indicators, but mostly based on process indicators already helps defining the framework of “Best practice” for head and neck cancer surgery. However, many aspects of surgical treatment still require in-depth research.

Summary: While a framework of “Best practice” strategies already exists for the conduction of the surgical treatment of head and neck cancers, many questions still require additional research in particular in case of rare histologies in the head and neck region.