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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Minig, Lucas, Bosch, José Manuel, Illueca, Carmen, Zorrero, Cristina, Cárdenas-Rebollo, José Miguel, Cruz, Julia, Romero, Ignacio
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