Second opinion pathology in tertiary care of patients with urologic malignancies

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 194-198

  Wayment, Robert O ^a   Bourne, Andrew ^a   Kay, Paul ^b   Tarter, Thomas H ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b ST JOHN'S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Bladder cancer; Grade; Pathology; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Stage

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLADDER CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CANCER THERAPY; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CONSULTATION; CYSTECTOMY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KIDNEY CANCER; KIDNEY PELVIS TUMOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; METASTASIS; PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY; PATHOLOGIST; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; RETROPERITONEAL TUMOR; RISK ASSESSMENT; SECOND OPINION PATHOLOGY; TERATOMA; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE; TESTIS CANCER; THERAPY DELAY; TRANSITIONAL CELL CARCINOMA; URETER CANCER; URINARY TRACT CANCER;

HUMANS; MALE; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UROLOGIC NEOPLASMS; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MALE;

EID: 79952041652     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.03.025     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Abt A.B., Abt L.G., Olt G.J. The effect of interinstitutional anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995, 119:514-517.
2. Manion E., Cohen M.B., Weydert J. Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: Clinical consequences of major disagreements. Am J Surg Pathol 2008, 00:1-6.
3. Tomaszewski J.E., Bear H.D., Connally J.A., et al. Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 2000, 114:329-335.
4. Gupta D., Layfield L.J. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review. Am J Surg Pathol 2000, 24:280-284.
5. Epstein J.I., Walsh P.C., 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. 12.
6. Kronz J.D., Westra W.H., Epstein J.I. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999, 86:2426-2435.
7. Tsung J.S.H. Institutional pathology consultation. Am J Surg Pathol 2004, 28:399-402.
8. Selman A.E., Nieman T.H., Fowler J.M., et al. Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gyneco 1999, 94:302-306.
9. Westra W.H., Kronz J.D., Eisele D.W. 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, 24:684-693.
10. Aldape K., Simmons M.L., Davis R.L., et al. Discrepancies in diagnoses of neuroepithelial neoplasms. Cancer 2000, 88:2342-2349.
11. van Dijk M.C., Aben K.K., van Hees F., et al. Expert review remains important in the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions. Histopathol 2008, 52:139-146.
12. Hahm G.K., Niemann T.H., Lucas J.G., et al. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001, 125:736-739.
13. Murphy W.M., Rivera-Ramirez I., Luciani L.G., et al. Second opinion of anatomical pathology: A complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong. J Urol 2001, 165:1957-1959.
14. Coblentz T.R., Mills S.E., Theodorescu D. Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer 2001, 91:1284-1290.
15. Sharkey F.E., Sarosdy M.F. The significance of central pathology review in clinical studies of transitional carcinoma in situ. J Urol 1997, 157:68-71.
16. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B., et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998, 280:969-974.
17. Stein J.P., Lieskovsky G., Cote R., et al. Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: Long-term results in 1054 patients. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:666-675.
18. Chan T.Y., Partin A.W., Walsh P.C., et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 vs. Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000, 56:823-827.
19. Segelov E., Cox K.M., Raghavan D., et al. The impact of histological review on clinical management of testicular cancer. Br J Urol 1993, 71:736-738.
20. Wurzer J.C., Al-Saleem T.I., Hanlon A.L., et al. Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center: Correlation of pathologic findings, analysis of cost, and impact on treatment. Cancer 1998, 83:753-759.