Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 9, Issue 10, 2002, Pages 982-987

  Staradub, Valerie L ^a,b   Messenger, Kathleen A ^a   Hao, Nanjiang ^a   Wiley, Elizabeth L ^a   Morrow, Monica ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Pathology; Second opinion; Surgical therapy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CANCER PATIENT; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATHOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT PLANNING; TUMOR BIOPSY;

BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CHICAGO; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 0036897052     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2002.03.056     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Hewitt M, Breen N, Devesa S. Cancer prevalence and survivorship issues: Analyses of the 1992 National Health Interview Survey. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1480-6.
2. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology sign-out. Routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17:1190-2.
3. Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC. On the proper role of slide review and second opinion consultations. CAP Today 2000;14:8-9.
4. Sirota RL. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 2000;89:225-6.
5. Whitehead ME, Fitzwater JE, Lindley SK, Kern SB, Ulirsch RC, Winecoff WF III. Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses: A prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1984;81:487-91.
6. Leslie KO, Fechner RE, Kempson RL. Second opinions in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;106:S58-64.
7. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, Sims KL. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;104:560-6.
8. Coblentz TR, Mills SE, Theodorescu D. Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer 2001;91:1284-90.
9. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999;86:2426-35.
10. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:209-21.
11. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:1133-43.
12. Consultations in surgical pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17:743-5.
13. Tomaszewski JE, Bear HD, Connally JA, et al. Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Who, what, and when. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:329-35.
14. Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review: A survey of current practice. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:280-4.
15. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:514-7.
16. Malhotra R, Massimi BA, Woda BA. Interinstitututional surgical pathology consultation and its role on patient management (abstract). Mod Pathol 1996;9:165A.
17. Cook IS, McCormick D, Poller DN. Referrals for second opinion in surgical pathology: Implications for management of cancer patients in the UK. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001;27:589-94.
18. Chang JH, Vines E, Bertsch H, et al. The impact of a multidisciplinary breast cancer center on recommendations for patient management: The University of Pennsylvania experience. Cancer 2001;91:1231-7.
19. Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Tosteson AN, Greenberg ER. Statewide study of diagnostic agreement in breast pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:142-5.
20. Rosen PR, Groshen S, Saigo PE, Kinne DW, Hellman S. A long-term follow-up study of survival in stage 1 (T1N0M0) and stage II (T1N1M0) breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:355-66.
21. Morrow M, Krontiras H. Who should not receive chemotherapy? Data from American databases and trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001:109-13.
22. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement: Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001:5-15.
23. Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman LS, Carriaga M. Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of breast cancer. The basis for a prognostic index. Cancer 1991;68:2142-9.
24. Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R. Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: A meta-analysis. Cancer 1999;85:616-28.
25. White J, Levine A, Gustafson G, et al. Outcome and prognostic factors for local recurrence in mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31:791-7.
26. Recommendations for the reporting of breast carcinoma. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Mod Pathol 1996;9:77-81.
27. Image-detected breast cancer: State of the art diagnosis and treatment. International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference. J Am Coll Surg 2001;193:297-302.
28. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, et al. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet 1995;345:1154-7.
29. Consensus Conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. The Consensus Conference Committee. Cancer 1997;80:1798-802.