Interinstitutional consultation in fine-needle aspiration cytopathology: A study of 742 cases

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 117, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 237-246

  Bomeisl Jr , Philip E ^a   Alam, Shadia ^a   Wakely Jr , Paul E ^a  

^a THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Consultation; Cytopathology; Diagnostic error; Fine needle aspiration

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HUMAN; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATIENT REFERRAL;

BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 69849093936     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20037     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Consultations in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:743-745.
2. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomic pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991; 15:1007-1009.
3. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2435.
4. 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;20:851-857.
5. Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24:280-284.
6. Parker-Pope T. Risk of error may justify second opinion on pathology reports. Wall Street Journal. April 13, 2001:1.
7. Frable WF. Surgical pathology-second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:620-625.
8. Parker-Pope T. Why it's hard to get a second opinion (and how to make sure you get one). Wall Street Journal. February 1, 2005:1.
9. Tarkan L. Value of second opinions is underscored in study of biopsies [Health Section]. New York Times. April 4, 2000:D7 20.
10. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:514-517.
11. Manion E, Cohen MB, Weydert J. Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: clinical consequences of major disagreements. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:732-737.
12. Ackerman AB. Discordance among expert pathologists in diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 1996; 27:1115-1116.
13. 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;116:473-476.
14. Hahm GK, Niemann TH, Lucas JG, et al. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125:736-739.
15. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology. I. Cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998;17:36-41.
16. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology. II. Endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998;17:42-45.
17. Khalifa MA, Dodge J, Covens A, et al. Slide review in gynecologic oncology ensures completeness of reporting and diagnostic accuracy. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:425-430.
18. Chafe S, Honore L, Pearcey R, et al. An analysis of the impact of pathology review in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:1433-1438.
19. McGowan L, Norris HJ. The mistaken diagnosis of carcinoma of the ovary. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;173:211-215.
20. Selman AE, Niemann TH, Fowler JM, et al. Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(1 suppl):302-306.
21. Inouye L, Langford LA, Fuller GN, Bruner JM. Diagnostic discrepancies in a neuropathology consultation practice: 500 consecutive cases. Mod Pathol. 1996;9(1 Suppl):165A.
22. Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, Langford LA. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997;79:796-803.
23. LaCasce AS, Kho ME, Friedberg JW, et al. Comparison of referring and final pathology for patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1-6.
24. Wurzer JC, Al-Saleem TI, Hanlon AL, et al. Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer. 1998;83:753-759.
25. Layfield LJ, Jones C, Rowe L, et al. Institutional review of outside cytology materials: a retrospective analysis of 2 institutions' experiences. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:45-48.
26. Baloch ZW, Hendreen S, Gupta PK. Interinstitutional review of thyroid fine-needle aspirations: impact on clinical management of thyroid nodules. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;25:231-234.
27. Lueck N, Jensen CS, Cohen MB, et al. Mandatory second opinion in cytopathology referral material [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(1 suppl):356A.
28. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
29. 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;114:329-335.
30. Baloch ZW, LiVolsi VA, Asa SL, et al. Diagnostic terminology and morphologic criteria for cytologic diagnosis of thyroid lesions: a synopsis of the National Cancer Institute thyroid fine-needle aspiration state of the science conference. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008;36:425-437.
31. Sirota RL. Defining error in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:604-606.
32. 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):1957-1959.
33. Foucar E. Error in anatomic pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116(suppl):S34-S46.
34. Boiko PE, Piepkorn MW. Reliability of skin biopsy pathology. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1994;7:371-374.