Cargando…
Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer
AIM: To determine the incidence of discrepancy rate between the initial pathology diagnosis and referral diagnosis in women with gynaecological cancer. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed including all consecutive patients with gynaecological cancer referred and who underwent...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cancer Intelligence
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6592709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31281426 http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2019.929 |
_version_ | 1783429926765985792 |
---|---|
author | Minig, Lucas Bosch, José Manuel Illueca, Carmen Zorrero, Cristina Cárdenas-Rebollo, José Miguel Cruz, Julia Romero, Ignacio |
author_facet | Minig, Lucas Bosch, José Manuel Illueca, Carmen Zorrero, Cristina Cárdenas-Rebollo, José Miguel Cruz, Julia Romero, Ignacio |
author_sort | Minig, Lucas |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: To determine the incidence of discrepancy rate between the initial pathology diagnosis and referral diagnosis in women with gynaecological cancer. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed including all consecutive patients with gynaecological cancer referred and who underwent pathologic review between January 2013 and May 2017. Discrepancies were minor when future treatment was not altered or major when the treatment was modified. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients were included. The original diagnosis was ovarian cancer (n = 126, 48.6%), endometrial cancer (n = 84, 32.4%), cervical cancer (n = 43, 16.6%) and vulvar cancer (n = 6, 2.3%). Eighteen women (6.9%) had major discrepancies and 69 patients (26.6%) had minor discrepancies. The main reason for the minor discrepancy was tumour grade or histology subtype. Regarding ovarian cancer, 13 out of 16 patients had minor discrepancies at histology subtype among serous, endometrioid, mucinous or undifferentiated tumours. The main issue for the minor discrepancy in patients with cervical cancer was among different subtype of cervical adenocarcinoma. Minor discrepancies due to tumour grade were also observed in 14, 19, 8 and 3 patients with endometrial, ovarian, cervical and vulvar cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A second pathology review also adds valid information in those cases with minor discrepancies leading to a difference in patients´ counselling regarding follow-up and prognosis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6592709 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Cancer Intelligence |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65927092019-07-05 Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer Minig, Lucas Bosch, José Manuel Illueca, Carmen Zorrero, Cristina Cárdenas-Rebollo, José Miguel Cruz, Julia Romero, Ignacio Ecancermedicalscience Clinical Study AIM: To determine the incidence of discrepancy rate between the initial pathology diagnosis and referral diagnosis in women with gynaecological cancer. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed including all consecutive patients with gynaecological cancer referred and who underwent pathologic review between January 2013 and May 2017. Discrepancies were minor when future treatment was not altered or major when the treatment was modified. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients were included. The original diagnosis was ovarian cancer (n = 126, 48.6%), endometrial cancer (n = 84, 32.4%), cervical cancer (n = 43, 16.6%) and vulvar cancer (n = 6, 2.3%). Eighteen women (6.9%) had major discrepancies and 69 patients (26.6%) had minor discrepancies. The main reason for the minor discrepancy was tumour grade or histology subtype. Regarding ovarian cancer, 13 out of 16 patients had minor discrepancies at histology subtype among serous, endometrioid, mucinous or undifferentiated tumours. The main issue for the minor discrepancy in patients with cervical cancer was among different subtype of cervical adenocarcinoma. Minor discrepancies due to tumour grade were also observed in 14, 19, 8 and 3 patients with endometrial, ovarian, cervical and vulvar cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A second pathology review also adds valid information in those cases with minor discrepancies leading to a difference in patients´ counselling regarding follow-up and prognosis. Cancer Intelligence 2019-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6592709/ /pubmed/31281426 http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2019.929 Text en © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Minig, Lucas Bosch, José Manuel Illueca, Carmen Zorrero, Cristina Cárdenas-Rebollo, José Miguel Cruz, Julia Romero, Ignacio Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer |
title | Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer |
title_full | Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer |
title_fullStr | Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer |
title_short | Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer |
title_sort | relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6592709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31281426 http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2019.929 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT miniglucas relevanceofminordiscrepanciesatsecondpathologyreviewingynaecologicalcancer AT boschjosemanuel relevanceofminordiscrepanciesatsecondpathologyreviewingynaecologicalcancer AT illuecacarmen relevanceofminordiscrepanciesatsecondpathologyreviewingynaecologicalcancer AT zorrerocristina relevanceofminordiscrepanciesatsecondpathologyreviewingynaecologicalcancer AT cardenasrebollojosemiguel relevanceofminordiscrepanciesatsecondpathologyreviewingynaecologicalcancer AT cruzjulia relevanceofminordiscrepanciesatsecondpathologyreviewingynaecologicalcancer AT romeroignacio relevanceofminordiscrepanciesatsecondpathologyreviewingynaecologicalcancer |