Standards, Options and Recommendations 2004: Good practice guidelines for second opinion in anatomic and surgical pathology in oncology (integral report);Standards, Options et Recommandations 2004 pour une bonne pratique de la consultation personnelle et de la relecture en anatomie et cytologie pathologiques en cancérologie (rapport intégral)

Bulletin du Cancer

Volumn 91, Issue 12, 2004, Pages 941-957

  Hassoun, Jacques ^a   Bataillard, Anne ^b   Voigt, Jean Jacques ^c   Coindre, Jean Michel ^d   Anger, Eric ^e   Bellocq, Jean Pierre ^f   Bugat, Roland ^c   Bougnoux, Agnès ^g   Dauplat, Jacques ^h   Hebbar, Mohamed ⁱ   Gérard, Jean Pierre ^j   Bourstyn, Edwige ^k  

^a INSTITUT PAOLI CALMETTES   (France)

^b FNCLCC   (France)

^c INSTITUT CLAUDIUS REGAUD   (France)

^d INSTITUT BERGONIÉ   (France)

^e Cabinet d'Anat et de Cytol Pathol   (France)

^f UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF STRASBOURG   (France)

^g UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF TOURS   (France)

^h CENTRE JEAN PERRIN   (France)

ⁱ LILLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^j CENTRE ANTOINE LACASSAGNE   (France)

^k SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Anatomic and surgical pathology; Clinical practice guidelines; Oncology; Second opinion

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONSULTATION; FRANCE; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; PATIENT REFERRAL; PATIENT RIGHT; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ETHICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; PATIENT RIGHTS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 19944431409     PISSN: 00074551     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995; 119(6): 514-7; [Comment in: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995; 119: 493].
2. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995; 119(6): 514-7; [Comment in: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995; 119: 493].
3. ADASP. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomic pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1991; 15: 1007-9.
4. ADASP. Consultations in surgical pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1993; 17(7): 743-5; [Comment in: Am J Surg Pathol. 1994; 18: 747-9].
5. ADASP. Consultations in surgical pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1993; 17(7): 743-5; [Comment in: Am J Surg Pathol. 1994; 18: 747-9].
6. ADASP. Recommendations of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Part II. Consultations in surgical pathology. Hum Pathol 1993; 24: 691-2; [Comment in: Hum. Pathol. 1993; 24: 1382].
7. ADASP. Recommendations of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Part II. Consultations in surgical pathology. Hum Pathol 1993; 24: 691-2; [Comment in: Hum. Pathol. 1993; 24: 1382].
8. ADASP. Consultations in surgical pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 102: 152-3.
9. Arbiser ZK, Folpe AL, Weiss SW. Consultative (expert) second opinions in soft tissue pathology. Analysis of problem-prone diagnostic situations. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 116: 473-6.
10. Azam M, Nakhleh RE. Surgical pathology extradepartmental consultation practices. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002; 126: 405-12.
11. Baloch ZW, Hendreen S, Gupta PK, et al. Interinstitutional review of thyroid fine-needle aspirations: impact on clinical management of thyroid nodules. Diagn Cytopathol 2001; 25: 231-4; [Comment in: Diagn. Cytopathol. 2002; 27: 128-9; author reply 130].
12. Baloch ZW, Hendreen S, Gupta PK, et al. Interinstitutional review of thyroid fine-needle aspirations: impact on clinical management of thyroid nodules. Diagn Cytopathol 2001; 25: 231-4; [Comment in: Diagn. Cytopathol. 2002; 27: 128-9; author reply 130].
13. Beckwith JB. Wilms' tumor and other renal tumors of childhood: a selective review from the National Wilms' Tumor Study Pathology Center. Hum Pathol 1983; 14: 481-92.
14. Bogomoletz WV. La consultation en anatomie pathologique. Le point de vue du pathologiste. Ann Pathol 1994; 14: 365-8.
15. CAP. Commission on laboratory accreditation. Anatomic pathology checklist, [online]. College of American Pathologists, ed. 2001. Available: URL: http://www.cap.org/html/checklist_html/ckls008p.html.
16. Chan YM, Cheung AN, Cheng DK, Ng TY, Ngan HY, Wong LC. Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology: routine or selective? Gynecol Oncol 1999; 75: 267-71.
17. 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.
18. Coindre JM, Blanc-Vincent MP, Collin F, et al. Standards, Options et Recommandations: conduite a tenir devant une lésion de diagnostic anatomo-cyto-pathologique difficile en cancérologie. Bull Cancer 2001; 88: 765-73.
19. 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.
20. Cooper K, Fitzgibbons PL. Institutional consultations in surgical pathology: how should diagnostic disagreements be handled? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002; 126: 650-1.
21. Daneshvar A. Second opinion. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 116: 295-8.
22. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 1996; 20: 851-7.
23. Fervers B, Bonichon F, Demard F, et al. Méthodologie de développement des Standards, Options et Recommandations diagnostiques et thérapeutiques en cancérologie. Bull Cancer 1995; 82: 761-7.
24. Fervers B, Hardy J, Blanc-Vincent MP, et al. SOR: project methodology. Br J Cancer 2001; 84(Suppl 2): 8-16.
25. Fisher ER, Fisher B, Sass R, Wickerham L. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (Protocol No. 4). XI. Bilateral breast cancer. Cancer 1984; 54: 3002-11.
26. Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC. Be careful what you wish for. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001; 125: 602-3.
27. Genton C, Bosman F. Assurance qualité en histopathologie. "De la biopsie au diagnostic". Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1999; 129: 1362-4.
28. 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.
29. Hahm GK, Niemann TH, Lucas JG, Frankel WL. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001; 125: 736-9.
30. Hansen JJ. Pathology consultations. Am J Surg Pathol 1994; 18: 747-9; [Comment on : Am J Surg Pathol. 1993; 17: 743-5].
31. Hansen JJ. Pathology consultations. Am J Surg Pathol 1994; 18: 747-9; [Comment on : Am J Surg Pathol. 1993; 17: 743-5].
32. Hoda RS, Gupta PK. Guidelines for seeking and offering consultations in cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 16(4): 366-7.
33. Horowitz J. Discordant diagnosis. Times (Lond) 1999; 154: 117.
34. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, Lawrence WD. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology: I. Cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1998; 17: 36-41.
35. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, Lawrence WD. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology: II. Endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1998; 17: 42-5.
36. Kempson RL. Pathology quality control in the cooperative clinical cancer trial programs. Cancer Treat Rep 1985; 69: 1207-10.
37. Kim H, Zelman RJ, Fox MA, et al. Pathology Panel for Lymphoma Clinical Studies: a comprehensive analysis of cases accumulated since its inception. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982; 68: 43-67.
38. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999; 86: 2426-35; [Comment in: Cancer. 1999 1; 86: 2198-200].
39. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999; 86: 2426-35; [Comment in: Cancer. 1999 1; 86: 2198-200].
40. Kronz JD, Milord R, Wilentz R, Weir EG, Schreiner SR, Epstein JI. Lesions missed on prostate biopsies in cases sent in for consultation. Prostate 2003; 54: 310-4.
41. Layfield LJ, Jones C, Rowe L, Gopez EV. Institutional review of outside cytology materials: a retrospective analysis of two institutions' experiences. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 26: 45-8.
42. Leslie KO, Fechner RE, Kempson RL. Second opinions in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1996; 106(4 Suppl 1): S58-S64; [Comment in: Am J Clin Pathol. 1997; 107: 497-8.
43. Leslie KO, Fechner RE, Kempson RL. Second opinions in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1996; 106(4 Suppl 1): S58-S64; [Comment in: Am J Clin Pathol. 1997; 107: 497-8.
44. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, Sims KL. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1995; 104: 560-6.
45. Murphy WM, Rivera-Ramirez I, Luciani LG, Wajsman Z. Second opinion of anatomical pathology: a complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong. J Urol 2001; 165(6 Pt 1): 1957-9.
46. Parker-Pope T. Health journal. Wall Street Journal 2001; April 17.
47. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987.
48. Presant CA, Russell WO, Alexander RW, Fu YS. Soft-tissue and bone sarcoma histopathology peer review: the frequency of disagreement in diagnosis and the need for second pathology opinions. The Southeastern Cancer Study Group experience. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1658-61.
49. Ramsay AD, Gallagher PJ. Local audit of surgical pathology. 18 month's experience of peer review- based quality assessment in an English teaching hospital. Am J Surg Pathol 1992; 16: 476-82.
50. Ramsay AD. Errors in histopathology reporting: detection and avoidance. Histopathology 1999; 34: 481-90.
51. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, Young ML. Quantifying the value of in-house consultation in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 117: 751-4.
52. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, Young ML. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002; 126: 961-3.
53. Rosen PP. Review of 'outside' pathology before treatment should be mandatory. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 1235-6.
54. 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.
55. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 115: 318-9; [Comment on: Am J Clin Pathol 2000; 114: 329-35].
56. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 115: 318-9; [Comment on: Am J Clin Pathol 2000; 114: 329-35].
57. Saint-Andre JP, Donzel JP, Anger E, et al. Recommandations de Bonnes Pratiques en Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques. Document préparé par l'Association Française d'Assurance Qualité en Anatomie et Cytologic Pathologiques (AFAQAP). Commission n° 4: organisation et fonctionnement des structures d'ACP. Ann Pathol 1998; 18: 227-36.
58. Santoso JT, Coleman RL, Voet RL, Bernstein SG, Lifshitz S, Miller D. Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91(5 Pt 1): 730-4.
59. 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(12): 1133-43; [Comment in: Am J Surg Pathol. 1993; 17: 1071-2.
60. 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(12): 1133-43; [Comment in: Am J Surg Pathol. 1993; 17: 1071-2.
61. Selman AE, Niemann TH, Fowler JM, Copeland LJ. Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 302-6.
62. Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N, Wiley EL, Morrow M. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9: 982-7.
63. Tomaszewski JE, LiVolsi VA. Mandatory second opinion of pathologic slides: is it necessary? Cancer 1999; 86: 2198-200; [Comment on: Cancer. 1999 1; 86: 2426-35.
64. Tomaszewski JE, LiVolsi VA. Mandatory second opinion of pathologic slides: is it necessary? Cancer 1999; 86: 2198-200; [Comment on: Cancer. 1999 1; 86: 2426-35.
65. 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; [Comment in: Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 115: 318-9].
66. 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; [Comment in: Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 115: 318-9].
67. Westra WH, Kronz JD, Eisele DW. The impact of second opinion surgical pathology on the practice of head and neck surgery: a decade experience at a large referral hospital. Head Neck 2002; 24: 684-93.
68. Wetherington RW, Cooper HS, Al Saleem T, et al. Clinical significance of performing immunohistochemistry on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer coming to a national comprehensive cancer center for treatment or second opinion. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 1222-30.
69. Whitehead ME, Fitzwater JE, Lindley SK, Kern SB, Ulirsch RC, Winecoff III WF. Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses : a prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1984; 81: 487-91.
70. Zuk JA, Kenyon WE, Myskow MW. Audit in histopathology: description of an internal quality assessment scheme with analysis of preliminary results. J Clin Pathol 1991; 44: 10-6.