Should pathologists send all or only selected slides for patient-requested interlaboratory second opinion?

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 132, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 763-766

  Renshaw, Megan A ^a   Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Gould, Edwin W ^a  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Anatomic pathology; Consultation; Continuous quality improvement; Diagnosis; Quality assurance; Second opinion; Sensitivity; Surgical pathology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT; CONSULTATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FROZEN SECTION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; BREAST TUMOR; CARCINOMA IN SITU; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT REFERRAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 70449729834     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP55VZZLQEHPPS     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology signout: routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:1190-1192.
2. Whitehead ME, Fitzwater JE, Lindley SK, et al. Quality assurance of histopathology diagnoses: a prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984;81:487-491.
3. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, et al. Prospective peer review of surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;104:560-566.
4. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:514-517.
5. 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. (Pubitemid 26230748)
6. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2438.
7. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Value of second opinion pathology review of endometrial cancer diagnosed on uterine curettings and biopsies [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 1997;10:103A.
8. Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, et al. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997;79:796-803. (Pubitemid 27076346)
9. Scott CB, Nelson JS, Farnan NC, et al. Central pathology review in clinical trials for patients with malignant glioma. Cancer. 1995;76:307-313.
10. Aldape K, Simmons ML, Davis RL, et al. Discrepancies in diagnosis of neuroepithelial neoplasms: the San Francisco Bay Area Adult Glioma Study. Cancer. 2000;88:2342-2349. (Pubitemid 30247135)
11. 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. (Pubitemid 32520515)
12. Grzybicki DM, Zarbo RJ, Raab SS, et al. Anatomic pathology and patient safety: it's not an error; it's a diagnostic misadventure [letter]! Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129:167-168.
13. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of disagreement and error rates for three types of interdepartmental consultations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124:878-882.
14. Renshaw AA. Measuring and reporting errors in surgical pathology: lessons from gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:338-341.
15. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:737-739.