Second opinion in breast pathology: Policy, practice and perception

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 67, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 955-960

  Geller, Berta M ^a   Nelson, Heidi D ^b   Carney, Patricia A ^c   Weaver, Donald L ^d   Onega, Tracy ^e   Allison, Kimberly H ^f   Frederick, Paul D ^g   Tosteson, Anna N A ^e   Elmore, Joann G ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^e DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL DUCTAL HYPERPLASIA; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MALE; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PATHOLOGIST; PATIENT COUNSELING; PERCEPTION; SECOND OPINION; TISSUE SECTION; TUMOR INVASION; UNITED STATES; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSENSUS; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; MANAGEMENT; MANPOWER; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONSENSUS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PERCEPTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; POLICY MAKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84908495744     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: 14724146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202290     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Manion E, Cohen M, Weydert J. Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: clinical consequences of major disagreements. Am J Surg Path 2008;32:732-37.
2. Kronz J, Westra W, Epstein J. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999;86:2426-35.
3. Gaudi S, Zarandona M, Raab S, et al. Discrepancies in dermapathology diagnoses: the role of second review policies and dermapathology fellowship training. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013;68:119-28.
4. Frable W. Surgical pathology - Second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: What's out there? Error or diagnostic variation? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:620-24.
5. Price J, Grunfeld E, Barnes P, et al. Inter-institutional pathology consultations for breast cancer: impact on clinical oncology therapy recommendations. Current Oncolo 2010;17:25-32.
6. Nakhleb R, Bekeris L, Souers R, et al. Surgical pathology case reviews before sign-out: a college of American pathologists Q-probes study of 45 laboratories. Arch Patholo Lab Med 2010;134:740-43.
7. Swapp R, Aubry M, Salomão D, et al. Outside case review of surgical pathology for referred patients: the impact on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:233-4.
8. Harvey S, Geller B, Oppenheimer R, et al. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1461-7.
9. Ciatto S, Rosselli, Del Turco M, et al. Comparison of standard and double reading and computer-aided detection (CAD) of interval cancers at prior negative screening mammograms: blind review. Br J Cancer 2003;89:1645-9.
10. Duijm L, Louwman M, Groenewoud J, et al. Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Br J Cancer 2009;100:901-7.
11. Duijm L, Groenewoud J, Hendriks J, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 2004;231:564-70.
12. Gupta D, Layfield L. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:280-84.
13. Tomaszewski J, Bear H, Connally J, et al. Consensus conference on second opinion in diagnostic anatomic pathology: Who, what, and when. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:329-35.
14. Renshaw A, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Cin Pathol 2006;125:737-39.
15. Oster N, Carney P, Allison K, et al. Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast pathology: Practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS). BMC Women's Health 2013;13:3.
16. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2013. http://www.R-project.org/
17. Heiberger R. HH: Statistical Analysis and DataDisplay: Heiberger and Holland. R package version 2.3 42. 2013. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=HH
18. Association of Directors of Anatomical and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:1007-09.
19. Renshaw A, Gould E. Measuring errors in surgical pathology in real-life practice. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;127:144-52.
20. Renshaw A, Pinnar N, Jiroteck M, et al. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:961-3.
21. Staradub V, Messenger K, Hao N, et al. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:982-7.
22. Abt A, Abt L, Olt G. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:514-7.
23. Onega T, Weaver D, Geller B, et al. Digitized whole slides for breast pathology interpretation: current practices and perceptions. J Digit Imaging 2014. doi:10.1007/s10278-014-9683-2.
24. Epstein S, Bingham E, Rall D, et al. Losing the "war against cancer": A need for public policy reforms. Intl J Health Serv 1992;22:455-69.
25. Hofvind S, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, et al. Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009;253:652-60.
26. Dinnes J, Moss S, Melia J, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. Breast 2001;10:455-63.