Interinstitutional Pathology Consultations: A Reassessment

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 120, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 405-412

  Weir, Michele M ^a   Jan, E ^b   Colgan, Terence J ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Pathology consultation; Second opinion review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CONSULTATION; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FLOW CYTOMETRY; HUMAN; INTERINSTITUTIONAL PATHOLOGY CONSULTATION; PATHOLOGY; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TISSUE SECTION; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION; EVALUATION; NEOPLASM; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT REFERRAL; STANDARD;

HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 85047687704     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/Q2HXBQ174A1R8H5Y     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review: a survey of current practice. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:280-284.
2. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Consultations in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:743-745.
3. Chafe S, Honore L, Pearcey R, et al. An analysis of pathology review in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:1433-1438.
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. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology, 1: cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998;17:36-41.
6. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology, 2: endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998;17:42-45.
7. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2435.
8. Selman AE, Niemann TH, Fowler JM, et al. Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:302-306.
9. Santoso JT, Coleman RL, Voet RL, et al. Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:730-734.
10. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20:851-857.
11. Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GW, et al. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997;79:796-803.
12. Malhotra R, Massimi G, Woda BA. Interinstitutional surgical pathology consultation and its role on patient management [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 1996;9:165A.
13. Wurzer JC, Al-Salce TI, Hanlon AL, et al. Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies referred to a comprehensive cancer center: correlation of pathologic findings, analysis of cost, and impact on treatment. Cancer. 1998;83:753-759.
14. 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;26:1222-1230.
15. Tomaszewski JE, Bear HD, Connally JA, et al. Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology: who, what, and where. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114:329-335.
16. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in surgical pathology and autopsy pathology. Mod Pathol. 1992;5:567-568.
17. Silverberg SG. The institutional pathology consultation: documentation of its importance in patient management [editorial]. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:493.
18. Compton CC. Q & A. CAP Today. August 2000;14:80.
19. Fitzgibbons PL, Compton CC. Be careful what you wish for, on calls for mandatory second opinion [editorial]. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125:602-603.
20. Rosen PP. Review of "outside" pathology before treatment should be mandatory [letter]. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1235-1236.
21. Eisenberg JM. Economics. JAMA. 1995;273:1670-1671.
22. Monaco GP, Goldschmidt P. What is proper cancer care in the era of managed care? Oncology. 1997;11:65-71.
23. Preventing fatal medical errors [editorial]. New York Times. December 1, 1999:A30.
24. Stolberg SG. Do no harm: breaking down medicine's culture of silence. New York Times. December 5, 1999;sect 4:1.
25. Tarkan L. Value of second opinions is underscored in study of biopsies. New York Times. April 4, 2000:D7.
26. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academics Press; 1999.
27. Sirota RL. The Institute of Medicine's report on medical error: implications for pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1674-1678.
28. Renshaw AA. Measuring and reporting errors in surgical pathology: lessons from gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:338-341.
29. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology [letter]. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:318-320.
30. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology sign-out: routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17:1190-1192.
31. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, et al. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;104:560-566.
32. Renshaw AA, Young ML, Jiroutek MR. How many cases need to be reviewed to compare performance in surgical pathology? Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:388-391.
33. Cooper K, Fitzgibbons PL, and the Surgical Pathology Committee of the College of American Pathologists and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Institutional consultations in surgical pathology: how should diagnostic disagreements be handled [editorial]? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:650-651.
34. Prescott RJ, Wells S, Bisset DL, et al. Audit of tumour histopathology reviewed by a regional oncology center. J Clin Pathol. 1995;48:245-249.
35. McGowan L, Norris HJ. The mistaken diagnosis of carcinoma of the ovary. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;173:211-215.
36. Harris M, Hartley AL, Blair V, et al. Sarcomas in northwest England, I: histopathological peer review. Br J Cancer. 1991;64:315-320.
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. Segelov E, Cox KM, Raghavan D, et al. The impact of histological review on clinical management of testicular cancer. Br J Urol. 1993;71:736-738.
39. Layfield LJ, Jones C, Rowe L, et al. Institutional review of outside cytology materials: a retrospective analysis of two institutions' experiences. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:45-48.
40. Ogilvie RT, Craighead PS, Ghatage P, et al. Assessment of diagnostic discrepancies identified by pathologic review of gynecologic oncology patients. Poster presented at: Canadian Association of Pathologists Meeting; Calgary, Canada; May 19-23, 2002.