Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug;477(2):301-307.
doi: 10.1007/s00428-019-02743-1. Epub 2020 Jan 9.

Relevance of routine pathology review in cervical carcinoma

Heleen J van Beekhuizen  1 , Mieloe D Freulings  1 , Shatavisha Dasgupta  2 , Folkert J van Kemenade  2 , Patricia C Ewing-Graham  2 , Helena C van Doorn  3
Affiliations

Relevance of routine pathology review in cervical carcinoma

Heleen J van Beekhuizen et al. Virchows Arch. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Cervical carcinoma; Discrepancies; Over-treatment; Pathology review; Under-treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Recommendations of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Part II (1993) Consultations in surgical pathology. Hum Pathol 24:691–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/0046-8177(93)90003-y - DOI
    1. Khalifa MA, Dodge J, Covens A, Osborne R, Ackerman I (2003) Slide review in gynaecologic oncology ensures completeness of reporting and diagnostic accuracy. Gynecol Oncol 90:425–430 - DOI
    1. Rampioni Vinciguerra GL, Antonelli G, Citron F, Berardi G, Angeletti S, Baldassarre G et al (2019) Pathologist second opinion significantly alters clinical management of pT1 endoscopically resected colorectal cancer. Virchows Arch. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02603-y
    1. Glabman M (2004) The top ten malpractice claims and how to minimize them. Hosp Health Netw 78:60–62 64–6, 2 - PubMed
    1. Eskander RN, Baruah J, Nayak R, Brueseke T, Ji T, Wardeh R et al (2013) Outside slide review in gynaecologic oncology: impact on patient care and treatment. Int J Gynecol Pathol 32:293–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e31826739c4 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types