Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Who, What, and When

Recommendations for using artificial intelligence in clinical flow cytometry

Flow cytometry is a key clinical tool in the diagnosis of many hematologic malignancies and traditionally requires close inspection of digital data by hematopathologists with expert domain knowledge. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are transferable to flow cytometry and have the potential to improve efficiency and prioritization of cases, reduce errors, and highlight fundamental, previously unrecognized associations with underlying biological processes. As a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders, we review a range of critical considerations for appropriately applying AI to clinical flow cytometry, including use case identification, low and high risk use cases, validation, revalidation, computational considerations, and the present regulatory frameworks surrounding AI in clinical medicine. In particular, we provide practical guidance for the development, implementation, and suggestions for potential regulation of AI-based methods in the clinical flow cytometry laboratory. We expect these recommendations to be a helpful initial framework of reference, which will also require additional updates as the field matures.

The Driver Role of Pathologists in Endocrine Oncology: What Clinicians Seek in Pathology Reports

Endocrine neoplasia represents an increasingly broad spectrum of disorders. Endocrine neoplasms range from incidental findings to potentially lethal malignancies. In this paper, we cover the impact of pathology in the interpretation of the clinic-pathological, genetic, and radiographic features underpinning these neoplasms. We highlight the critical role of multidisciplinary interactions in structuring a rational diagnostic and efficient therapeutic plan and emphasize the role of histopathological input in decision-making. In this context, standardized pathology reporting and second opinion endocrine pathology review represent relevant tools to improve the overall diagnostic workup of patients affected by endocrine tumors in every specific scenario. In fact, although a relevant proportion of cases may be correctly identified based on clinical presentation and biochemical/imaging investigations, a subset of cases presents with atypical findings that may lead to an inappropriate diagnosis and treatment plan based on a wrong pathological diagnosis if all pieces of the puzzle are not correctly considered. Pathologists have a responsibility to actively guide clinicians before and during surgical procedures to prevent unnecessary interventions. In all areas of endocrine pathology, pathologists must understand the complexity of tissue preservation and assay sensitivities and specificities to ensure the optimal quality and interpretation of diagnostic material. Finally, pathologists are central actors in tumor tissue biobanking, which is an expanding field in oncology that should be promoted while adhering to strict ethical and methodological standards.

Second Opinion in the Italian Organ Procurement Transplantation: The Pathologist Is In

Second opinion consultation is a well-established practice in different clinical settings of diagnostic medicine. However, little is known about second opinion consultation activity in transplantation, and even less is known about it concerning donor assessment. The consultations provided by the second opinion service led to the safer and homogeneous management of donors with a history of malignancy or ongoing neoplasm by transplant centers. Indeed, two of the most important aspects are the reduction of semantic differences in cancer reporting and the standardization of procedures, which are mainly due to the different settings and logistics of different pathology services. This article aims to discuss the role and the future of the second opinion in Italy during organ procurement, highlighting the critical issues and areas for improvement.

Breast Sarcomas-How Different Are They from Breast Carcinomas? Clinical, Pathological, Imaging and Treatment Insights

Breast sarcoma (BS) is a very rare and poorly studied condition. This has led to a lack of studies with a high level of evidence and to low efficacy of current clinical management protocols. Here we present our experience in treating this disease in the form of a retrospective case series study including discussion of clinical, imaging, and pathological features and treatment. We also compare the main clinical and biological features of six cases of BS (phyllodes tumors were excluded) with a cohort of 184 patients with unilateral breast carcinoma (BC) from a previous study performed at our institution. Patients with BS were diagnosed at a younger age, presented no evidence of lymph node invasion or distant metastases, had no multiple or bilateral lesions, and underwent a shorter length of hospital stay versus the breast carcinoma group. Where recommended, adjuvant chemotherapy consisted of an anthracycline-containing regimen, and adjuvant external radiotherapy was delivered in doses of 50 Gy. The comparison data obtained from our BS cases and the ones with BC revealed differences in diagnosis and treatment. A correct pathological diagnosis of breast sarcoma is essential for the right therapeutic approach. We still have more to learn about this entity, but our case series could add value to existing knowledge in a meta-analysis study.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

Diagnostic concordance of pathological methods and reports of hematopathologists compared to local nonspecialized pathologists in the diagnosis of lymphoma in Mexico

OBJECTIVES

To assess the concordance between lymphoma diagnoses made via tissue biopsy by local pathologists and also to assess the after review of these specimens by more specialized hematopathologists.

METHODS

A prospective, non-interventional and multicenter study was conducted at seven sites in Mexico from January 2017 to October 2017. Eligible biopsies were sampled from patients with a previous diagnosis of lymphoma on lymph node biopsy or a diagnosis of extranodal lymphoma, with adequate amount and tissue preservation for the review analysis. The biopsy tissues reviewed by local pathologists were also reviewed by hematopathologists participating in the study. The concordance in diagnosis results was classified into three categories: diagnostic agreement, minor discrepancy and major discrepancy.

RESULTS

Out of 111 samples received, 105 samples met the eligibility criteria and were included for full analysis. The median patient age (range) was 54 (16-94) years. A diagnostic agreement was observed in 23 (21.9%) biopsies, minor discrepancies were observed in 32 (30.5%) biopsies and major discrepancies were observed in 50 (47.6%) biopsies. Diagnostic concordance varied across the seven study sites; the rate of major discrepancies ranged from 0% to 100% and the rate of diagnostic agreement ranged from 0% to 81.8%. Out of the 105 reviewed biopsies, a total of 89 cases were diagnosed as lymphoma by hematopathologists.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that major discrepancies were observed following the review by hematopathologists compared with that of the local pathologist's initial diagnosis in nearly one-half cases. In addition, there was a wide variation in the percentage of diagnostic agreements and discrepancies among different study sites.

Patient-initiated second medical consultations-patient characteristics and motivating factors, impact on care and satisfaction: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To review the characteristics and motivations of patients seeking second opinions, and the impact of such opinions on patient management, satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic literature search was performed for terms related to second opinion and patient characteristics. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We included articles focused on patient-initiated second opinions, which provided quantitative data on their impact on diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or patient satisfaction, described the characteristics or motivating factors of patients who initiated a second opinion, or the cost-effectiveness of patient-initiated second opinions.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty-three articles were included in the review. 29 studies considered patient characteristics, 19 patient motivating factors, 10 patient satisfaction and 17 clinical agreement between the first and second opinion. Seeking a second opinion was more common in women, middle-age patients, more educated patients; and in people having a chronic condition, with higher income or socioeconomic status or living in central urban areas. Patients seeking a second opinion sought to gain more information or reassurance about their diagnosis or treatment. While many second opinions confirm the original diagnosis or treatment, discrepancies in opinions had a potential major impact on patient outcomes in up to 58% of cases. No studies reported on the cost effectiveness of patient initiated second opinions.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified several demographic factors associated with seeking a second opinion, including age, gender, health status, and socioeconomic status. Differences in opinion received, and in the impact of change in opinion, varies significantly between medical specialties. More research is needed to understand the cost effectiveness of second opinions and identify patient groups most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Clinical and Financial Implications of Second-Opinion Surgical Pathology Review

OBJECTIVES

Second-opinion pathology review identifies clinically significant diagnostic discrepancies for some patients. Discrepancy rates and laboratory-specific costs in a single health care system for patients referred from regional affiliates to a comprehensive cancer center ("main campus") have not been reported.

METHODS

Main campus second-opinion pathology cases for 740 patients from eight affiliated hospitals during 2016 to 2018 were reviewed. Chart review was performed to identify changes in care due to pathology review. To assess costs of pathology interpretation, reimbursement rates for consultation Current Procedural Terminology billing codes were compared with codes that would have been used had the cases originated at the main campus.

RESULTS

Diagnostic discrepancies were identified in 104 (14.1%) patients, 30 (4.1%) of which resulted in a change in care. In aggregate, reimbursement for affiliate cases was 65.6% of the reimbursement for the same cases had they originated at the main campus. High-volume organ systems with low relative consultation reimbursement included gynecologic, breast, and thoracic.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventable diagnostic errors are reduced by pathology review for patients referred within a single health care system. Although the resulting changes in care potentially lead to overall cost savings, the financial value of referral pathology review could be improved.

Predictive factors of diagnostic and therapeutic divergence in a nationwide cohort of patients seeking second medical opinion

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe the profile of patients who sought a second medical opinion (SMO) on their therapeutic or diagnostic strategy using nationwide data from a French physician network dedicated to SMOs.

METHODS

An observational cohort study was conducted and the study population consisted of patients residing in France or in the French overseas territories who submitted a request for an SMO through a dedicated platform between January 2016 and October 2020. Patient characteristics were compared between convergent and divergent SMOs. The divergent rate for all patients excluding those with mental diseases were described. Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of a divergent SMO according to patient characteristics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In total, 1,552 adult patients over several French regions were included. The divergence rate was 32.3 % (n = 502 patients). Gynecological [Odds Ratio (OR) and 95 % CI: 5.176 (3.154 to 8.494)], urological [OR 4.246 (2.053 to 8.782)] and respiratory diseases [OR 3.639 (1.357 to 9.758)] had the highest probability of a divergent SMO. Complex cases were also associated with a significantly higher risk of a divergent opinion [OR 2.78 (2.16 to 3.59)]. Age, sex, region and profession were not found to be predictive of a divergent second opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers should encourage new research on patient outcomes such as mortality and hospitalization rates after a SMO. When proven effective, SMO networks will have the potential to benefit from specific public funding or even play a key role in national healthcare quality improvement programs.

Assessing the value of second opinion pathology review

BACKGROUND

Second opinion review of pathology cases can identify diagnostic errors that impact patient care.

OBJECTIVE

We sought out to determine discrepancy rates and clinical impact of review of pathology cases to reassess our policy of review on all second opinion cases.

METHODS

All second opinion pathology cases over 1 year (2018) were retrospectively reviewed for discrepancy, multiple pathologist review and clinicopathologic features via chart and slide review. Cases were categorized as no significant discordance, major discordance without management change and major discordance with management change.

RESULTS

Among 4239 second opinion cases, 3.7% (156/4239) had major discordance with no change in management and 1% (42/4239) had major discordance with change in management. Discordance was significantly associated with multiple pathologist review at our institution (P < 0.001). Highest rates of discordance were observed for thyroid fine needle aspiration (15.3%, 26/170), tissue biopsy of bone/soft tissue (9.6%), endocrine (8.8%), genitourinary (6.7%), gynecologic (6.2%), hematopathology (4%), gastrointestinal/liver (3.7%) and thoracic (3%) sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed a 1% major discordance rate with resulting significant change in clinical management, spread across nearly all subspecialties. Thus, we support recommendations for review of relevant outside pathology material for all patients for which review has the potential to illicit management change such as instituting a major medical or surgical therapy.

Second medical opinion in oncological setting

Oncological patients increasingly require second medical opinions to feel more likely confident with their oncologists and treatments, although this could lead to wrong opinions and delay in the start of treatments. Second opinions can be required also by physicians to obtain advices, especially in case of rare tumors. The request of new opinions is documented in radiology and pathology settings too, with not negligible discrepancy rate. Conversely, the role in general medical/surgical conditions has not been well established. Literature is poor of studies relative to second opinions or they are more focused on patient's motivations. For these reasons, AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) and AIOM Foundation faced this topic during the 7th Annual Meeting on Ethics in Oncology (Ragusa, 4-5 t h May 2018). In this position paper we report reasons, limits, advantages and outcomes of second medical opinion and the respective Decalogue in the oncological setting.

Expert Reliability in Legal Proceedings: "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe, With Which Expert Should We Go?"

Between Expert Reliability refers to the extent to which different experts examining identical evidence make the same observations and reach the same conclusions. Some areas of expert decision making have been shown to entail questions with relatively low Between Expert Reliability, but the disagreement between experts is not always communicated to the legal actors forming decisions on the basis of the expert evidence. In this paper, we discuss the issues of Between Expert Reliability in legal proceedings, using forensic age estimations as a case study. Across national as well international jurisdictions, there is large variation in which experts are hired to conduct age estimations as well as the methods they use. Simultaneously, age estimations can be fully decisive for outcomes e.g. in asylum law and criminal law. Using datasets obtained from the Swedish legal context, we identify that radiologists and odontologists examining knees or teeth images to estimate age seem to disagree within their own disciplines (radiologist 1 v. radiologist 2 or odontologist 1 v. odontologist 2) as well as across different disciplines (radiologist v. odontologist) relatively often. This may have large implications e.g. in cases where only one expert from the respective field is involved. The paper discusses appropriate ways for legal actors to deal with the possibility of lacking Between Expert Reliability. This is indeed a challenging task provided that legal actors are legal experts but not necessarily scientific experts.

Inter-observer Variability in Histomorphological Evaluation of Non-neoplastic Liver Biopsy Tissue and Impact of Clinical Information on Final Diagnosis in Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Affiliated Hospitals

Background & Objective:

Liver biopsy is the main method for grading and staging liver disorders, but the effects of clinical information and optimal biopsy specimen size on interpretation remain contentious. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of clinical information and quality of liver specimen on inter-observer agreement for liver disease.

Methods:

A total of 289 consecutive biopsy specimens from 2010 to 2017 were re-evaluated by five pathologists using the modified Ishak and non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases (NAFLD) activity score (NAS) systems. Detailed clinical information was extracted from medical records of patients and the size of all liver biopsy samples was recorded.

Results:

Full agreement between primary diagnosis and final diagnosis was obtained in 214 cases (74%). The remaining cases, namely 22 (7.6%) and 53 (18.3%) biopsies had minor and major diagnostic discrepancies, respectively. The results showed that the overall agreement was significantly higher in cases with complete clinical information than patients without any clinical information and even with partial clinical information (P<0.001). Interestingly, no significant difference in inter-observer agreement was achieved with a length over 20 mm (P=0.181). However, the inter-observer variation significantly decreased when the number of portal tract was more than 10 (P=0.001).

Conclusion:

This study identified the impact of clinical information and the number of portal tracts as the key factors to diagnosis. Therefore, request forms for liver biopsies should always be accompanied with the clinical history. Moreover, adequacy of biopsy specimens is very useful for accurate evaluation of samples by pathologists.

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 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.

Histopathologic challenges: The second OPINION issue

Classification and definition criteria for rare cancer is still an open issue in clinical practice due to several factors, which include the limited available molecular data to better defining specific tumor groups or "families" of interest. An important issue related to the proper management of these entities is the correct diagnosis and subtyping of a given entity. The high complexity associated with the histopathologic diagnosis and eventual molecular analysis may suggest the use of a histopathologic second opinion from a specialized pathologist. Diagnostic inaccuracies and difference between primary diagnosis and second opinion are expected at the population level: however, the magnitude of this difference is remarkably high and calls for implementation of second opinion in routine practice outside reference centers.

The cost-saving effect of centralized histological reviews with soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, GIST, and desmoid tumors: The experiences of the pathologists of the French Sarcoma Group

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the types of discordance occurring in the diagnosis of soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and desmoid tumors, as well as the economic impact of diagnostic discrepancies.

METHODS

We carried out a retrospective, multicenter analysis using prospectively implemented databases performed on a cohort of patients within the French RRePS network in 2010. Diagnoses were deemed to be discordant based on the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. Predictive factors of discordant diagnoses were explored. A decision tree was used to assess the expected costs of two strategies of disease management: one based on revised diagnoses after centralized histological review (option 1), the other on diagnoses without centralized review (option 2). Both were defined based on the patient and the disease characteristics, according to national or international guidelines. The time horizon was 12 months and the perspective of the French National Health Insurance (NHI) was retained. Costs were expressed in Euros for 2013. Sensitivity analyses were performed using low and high scenarios that included ± 20% estimates for cost.

RESULTS

A total of 2,425 patients were included. Three hundred forty-one patients (14%) had received discordant diagnoses. These discordances were determined to mainly be benign tumors diagnosed as sarcomas (n = 124), or non-sarcoma malignant tumors diagnosed as sarcomas (n = 77). The probability of discordance was higher for a final diagnosis of desmoid tumors when compared to liposarcomas (odds ratio = 5.1; 95%CI [2.6-10.4]). The expected costs per patient for the base-case analysis (low- and high-case scenarios) amounted to €8,791 (€7,033 and €10,549, respectively) for option 1 and €8,904 (€7,057 and €10,750, respectively) for option 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight misdiagnoses of sarcomas, which were found to most often be confused with benign tumors. Centralized histological reviews are likely to provide cost-savings for the French NHI.

Second Opinion Expert Pathology Review in Bladder Cancer: Implications for Patient Care

Objectives. To review bladder specimens referred to our facility for secondary review to determine the frequency and degree of changes in pathological diagnoses, which could affect patient care. Methods. A retrospective review of 246 bladder specimens sent to our pathology department for second opinion pathological review was performed. All consultation specimens were reviewed by a single genitourinary (GU)-subspecialized surgical pathologist. Any changes in the pathological grade, stage, or histological tumor type were noted as well as patient demographic data. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the frequency and type of discrepancies in diagnoses and determine any associations with patient demographic parameters. Results. Secondary pathology consultation of 246 bladder specimens from 233 patients were reviewed and compared with the primary diagnosis. The diagnosis was altered in 91/246 cases (37.0%). The number of cases reviewed per patient and specimen type was not associated with a change in diagnosis ( P = .19; P = .1). Of the cases with a change in diagnosis, 8 (8.8%) changed malignancy status, 46 (50.5%) changed stage, 16 (17.6%) changed tumor type (ie, change from urothelial carcinoma to prostate adenocarcinoma), 16 (17.6%) changed histological variant subtype, and 14 (15.4%) changed grade. There was no association noted between age, gender, or race and changes in diagnosis ( P = .53; P = .41; P = .70). Conclusions. Secondary pathology review with a GU-subspecialized surgical pathologist can change the stage, grade, or histological subtype on bladder biopsy and tumor resection specimens in more than one-third of cases. Age and gender were not associated with the frequency of change in diagnosis on consultation review.

Intra-institutional second opinion diagnosis can reduce unnecessary surgery for indeterminate thyroid FNA: A preliminary report on 34 cases

INTRODUCTION

Indeterminate diagnoses are rendered on 15%-30% of thyroid fine-needle aspirates (FNA). Thus, a second diagnostic opinion given by an outside expert pathologist is a common practice that facilitates a more appropriate clinical management. Conversely, the role of an intra-institutional second opinion diagnosis (iSOD), which is usually informally performed in-house, has not been well established.

METHODS

To assess the contribution of iSOD, a retrospective series of 34 thyroid FNA diagnosed as follicular neoplasm/suspicious follicular neoplasm (FN/SFN) with matched histological follow-up and a malignancy rate of 17.6% was selected and independently reviewed by two cytopathologists (CYT1 and 2). Cases with discrepant diagnoses were referred to a third in-house senior cytopathologist for the iSOD. The malignancy rates (MR) obtained after single independent reviews and iSOD were compared.

RESULTS

MR obtained after CYT1 and CYT2 re-screening was similar (14.28% and 19.04%, respectively) and did not improve the original MR (17.64%). Conversely, after the iSOD of discrepant diagnoses, the overall malignancy rate increased up to the 27.27%, potentially sparing unnecessary surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-institutional second opinion practice for "indeterminate" thyroid FNA avoids unnecessary surgeries and maximises the detection of malignant cases diagnosed as FN/SFN.

Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies

AIMS

Second opinions in pathology improve patient safety by reducing diagnostic errors, leading to more appropriate clinical treatment decisions. Little objective data are available regarding the factors triggering a request for second opinion despite second opinion consultations being part of the diagnostic system of pathology. Therefore we sought to assess breast biopsy cases and interpreting pathologists characteristics associated with second opinion requests.

METHODS

Collected pathologist surveys and their interpretations of 60 test set cases were used to explore the relationships between case characteristics, pathologist characteristics and case perceptions, and requests for second opinions. Data were evaluated by logistic regression and generalised estimating equations.

RESULTS

115 pathologists provided 6900 assessments; pathologists requested second opinions on 70% (4827/6900) of their assessments 36% (1731/4827) of these would not have been required by policy. All associations between case characteristics and requesting second opinions were statistically significant, including diagnostic category, breast density, biopsy type, and number of diagnoses noted per case. Exclusive of institutional policies, pathologists wanted second opinions most frequently for atypia (66%) and least frequently for invasive cancer (20%). Second opinion rates were higher when the pathologist had lower assessment confidence, in cases with higher perceived difficulty, and cases with borderline diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathologists request second opinions for challenging cases, particularly those with atypia, high breast density, core needle biopsies, or many co-existing diagnoses. Further studies should evaluate whether the case characteristics identified in this study could be used as clinical criteria to prompt system-level strategies for mandating second opinions.

Voluntary Second Opinions in Pediatric Bone and Soft Tissue Pathology: A Retrospective Review of 1601 Cases From a Single Mesenchymal Tumor Consultation Service

The diagnosis of bone and soft tissue tumors in children is challenging. These lesions are especially difficult for general pathologists. We reviewed our experience with pediatric mesenchymal tumors sent in consultation to our service, with the goal of identifying issues that most often prompted second-opinion referral. Roughly 16 000 cases were seen in toto, of which 1601 occurred in children. These included 491 bone cases and 1110 soft tissue cases. The cases were referred by private practices/nonacademic medical centers (85%), academic medical centers (8%), and pediatric hospitals (7%). Reasons for referral were (a) self-perceived lack of experience with pediatric mesenchymal tumors (n = 930), (b) second opinion requested by the clinician or patient (n = 132), and (c) perceived or real need for ancillary studies not available at the referring institution (n = 116). The referring pathologists suggested a diagnosis for 670 cases; of these, 476 (71%) were in essential agreement with our final diagnosis. Of the remaining, 139 (21%) were considered "minor disagreements" and 55 (8%) "major disagreements." The "major disagreement" cases could be divided into (a) malignant tumors submitted with benign diagnoses (58%), (b) benign tumors submitted with malignant diagnoses (25%), (c) nonneoplastic conditions submitted as representing neoplasms (11%), and (d) neoplasm submitted as representing nonneoplastic conditions (6%). Pediatric mesenchymal tumors comprised 10% of cases sent to our mesenchymal tumor consultation practice. The rates of diagnostic disagreement found in this study are roughly in accordance with prior studies of mandatory and voluntary second opinion in adult soft tissue tumors. Given the rarity of these tumors, expert second opinion may be of value.

Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study

OBJECTIVE

 To evaluate the potential effect of second opinions on improving the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of breast histopathology.

DESIGN

 Simulation study.

SETTING

 12 different strategies for acquiring independent second opinions.

PARTICIPANTS

 Interpretations of 240 breast biopsy specimens by 115 pathologists, one slide for each case, compared with reference diagnoses derived by expert consensus.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

 Misclassification rates for individual pathologists and for 12 simulated strategies for second opinions. Simulations compared accuracy of diagnoses from single pathologists with that of diagnoses based on pairing interpretations from first and second independent pathologists, where resolution of disagreements was by an independent third pathologist. 12 strategies were evaluated in which acquisition of second opinions depended on initial diagnoses, assessment of case difficulty or borderline characteristics, pathologists' clinical volumes, or whether a second opinion was required by policy or desired by the pathologists. The 240 cases included benign without atypia (10% non-proliferative, 20% proliferative without atypia), atypia (30%), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 30%), and invasive cancer (10%). Overall misclassification rates and agreement statistics depended on the composition of the test set, which included a higher prevalence of difficult cases than in typical practice.

RESULTS

 Misclassification rates significantly decreased (P<0.001) with all second opinion strategies except for the strategy limiting second opinions only to cases of invasive cancer. The overall misclassification rate decreased from 24.7% to 18.1% when all cases received second opinions (P<0.001). Obtaining both first and second opinions from pathologists with a high volume (≥10 breast biopsy specimens weekly) resulted in the lowest misclassification rate in this test set (14.3%, 95% confidence interval 10.9% to 18.0%). Obtaining second opinions only for cases with initial interpretations of atypia, DCIS, or invasive cancer decreased the over-interpretation of benign cases without atypia from 12.9% to 6.0%. Atypia cases had the highest misclassification rate after single interpretation (52.2%), remaining at more than 34% in all second opinion scenarios.

CONCLUSION

 Second opinions can statistically significantly improve diagnostic agreement for pathologists' interpretations of breast biopsy specimens; however, variability in diagnosis will not be completely eliminated, especially for breast specimens with atypia.

Improved quality of patient care through routine second review of histopathology specimens prior to multidisciplinary meetings

AIM

Double reading may be a valuable tool for improving quality of patient care by identifying diagnostic errors before final sign-out, but standard double reading would significantly increase costs of pathology. We assessed the added value of intradepartmental routine double reading of histopathology specimens prior to multidisciplinary meetings.

METHODS

Diagnoses, treatment plans and prognoses of patients are often discussed at multidisciplinary meetings. As part of the daily routine, all pathology specimens to be discussed at upcoming multidisciplinary meetings undergo prior intradepartmental double reading. We identified all histopathology specimens from 2013 that underwent such double reading and determined major and minor discordance rates based on clinical relevance between the initial and consensus sign-out diagnoses.

RESULTS

We included 6796 histopathology specimens that underwent double reading, representing approximately 8% of all histopathology cases at our institution in 2013. Double reading diagnoses were concordant in 6566 specimens (96.6%). Major and minor discordances were observed in 60 (0.9%) and 170 (2.5%) specimens, respectively. Urology specimens had significantly more discordances than other tissues of origin, Gleason grading of prostate cancer biopsies being the most frequent diagnostic problem. Furthermore, premalignant and malignant cases showed significantly higher discordance rates than the rest. The vast majority (90%) of discordances represented changes within the same diagnostic category (eg, malignant to malignant).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine double reading of histopathology specimens prior to multidisciplinary meetings prevents diagnostic errors. It resulted in about 1% discordant diagnoses of potential clinical significance, indicating that second review is worthwhile in terms of patient safety and quality of patient care.

Consultative issues in surgical neuropathology: a retrospective review of the rationale for submitting cases for expert review

OBJECTIVES

Second opinions on neuropathology cases are sought for a variety of reasons. We investigated the rationales for seeking expert neuropathologic review.

METHODS

A retrospective review was done of the correspondence accompanying neuropathology cases submitted over a 5-year period. The review used a taxonomy of referral reasons, the submitting diagnoses, and requests for ancillary tests.

RESULTS

In total, 508 adult cases were submitted, including glioblastoma (n = 94), anaplastic astrocytoma (n = 49), low-grade glioma (n = 49), oligodendroglioma (n = 48), and pituitary adenoma (n = 12). Thirty-nine cases submitted requested ancillary testing. A taxonomy of four categories revealed the following: preliminary diagnosis (n = 228 cases) was the most common reason for requesting review, followed by no diagnosis rendered (n = 183 cases), second opinion (n = 53), and confirmation/quality assurance (n = 43); the remaining case was "other." Overall, 456 cases were submitted by pathologists, 40 by clinicians and 12 by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathologists who predominately submit cases with a preliminary diagnosis rendered seek expert consultation while clinicians seek a second opinion.

Improved cytodiagnostics and quality of patient care through double reading of selected cases by an expert cytopathologist

Double reading may be a valuable tool for improving the quality of patient care by restoring diagnostic errors before final sign-out, but standard double reading would significantly increase costs of pathology. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of routine double reading of defined categories of clinical cytology specimens by specialized cytopathologists. Specialized cytopathologists routinely re-diagnosed blinded defined categories of clinical cytology specimens that had been signed out by routine pathologists from January 2012 up to December 2013. Major and minor discordance rates between initial and expert diagnoses were determined, and both diagnoses were validated by comparison with same-site histological follow-up. Initial and expert diagnoses were concordant in 131/218 specimens (60.1 %). Major and minor discordances were present in 28 (12.8 %) and 59 (27.1 %) specimens, respectively. Pleural fluid, thyroid and urine specimens showed the highest major discordance rates (19.4, 19.2 and 16.7 %, respectively). Histological follow-up (where possible) supported the expert diagnosis in 95.5 % of specimens. Our implemented double reading strategy of defined categories of cytology specimens showed major discordance in 12.8 % of specimens. The expert diagnosis was supported in 95.5 % of discordant cases where histological follow-up was available. This indicates that this double reading strategy is worthwhile and contributes to better cytodiagnostics and quality of patient care, especially for suspicious pleural fluid, thyroid and urine specimens. Our results emphasize that cytopathology is a subspecialization of pathology and requires specialized cytopathologists.

Second opinion in breast pathology: policy, practice and perception

AIMS

To assess the laboratory policies, pathologists' clinical practice and perceptions about the value of second opinions for breast pathology cases among pathologists practising in the USA.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data were collected from 252 pathologists who interpret breast specimens in eight states using a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise findings.

RESULTS

Most participants had >10 years of experience interpreting breast specimens (64%), were not affiliated with academic centres (73%) and were not considered experts by their peers (79%). Laboratory policies mandating second opinions varied by diagnosis: invasive cancer 65%; ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 56%; atypical ductal hyperplasia 36% and other benign cases 33%. 81% obtained second opinions in the absence of policies. Participants believed they improve diagnostic accuracy (96%) and protect from malpractice suits (83%), and were easy to obtain, did not take too much time and did not make them look less adequate. The most common (60%) approach to resolving differences between the first and second opinion is to ask for a third opinion, followed by reaching a consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory-based second opinion policies vary for breast pathology but are most common for invasive cancer and DCIS cases. Pathologists have favourable attitudes towards second opinions, adhere to policies and obtain them even when policies are absent. Those without a formal policy may benefit from supportive clinical practices and systems that help obtain second opinions.

Second-Opinion Pathologic Review Is a Patient Safety Mechanism That Helps Reduce Error and Decrease Waste

Second review of a patient's outside pathology by a subspecialist pathologist demonstrates the value of multidisciplinary cancer care in a high-volume comprehensive cancer center.

Patient-initiated second opinions: systematic review of characteristics and impact on diagnosis, treatment, and satisfaction

The impact of second opinions on diagnosis in radiology and pathology is well documented; however, the value of patient-initiated second opinions for diagnosis and treatment in general medical practice is unknown. We conducted a systematic review of patient-initiated second opinions to assess their impact on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction and to determine characteristics and motivating factors of patients who seek a second opinion. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Academic OneFile databases using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes and keyword searches. Search terms included referral and consultation, patient-initiated, patient preference, patient participation, second opinion, second review, and diagnosis. Multiple reviewers screened abstracts and articles to determine eligibility and extract data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and rated study quality using Cochrane's GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We screened 1342 abstracts and reviewed full text of 41 articles, identifying 7 articles that reported clinical agreement data and 10 that discussed patient characteristics, motivation, and satisfaction. We found that a second opinion typically confirms the original diagnosis or treatment regimen but that 90% of patients with poorly defined conditions remain undiagnosed. However, 10% to 62% of second opinions yield a major change in the diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis. A larger fraction of patients receive different advice on treatment than on diagnosis. Factors motivating a second opinion include diagnosis or treatment confirmation, dissatisfaction with a consultation, desire for more information, persistent symptoms, or treatment complications. Patients generally believed that second opinions were valuable. Second opinions can result in diagnostic and treatment differences. The literature on patient-initiated second opinions is limited, and the accuracy of the second opinion through follow-up is generally unknown. Standardized methods and outcome measures are needed to determine the value of second opinions, and the potential of second opinions to reduce diagnostic errors merits more rigorous evaluation.

Changes in breast cancer reports after pathology second opinion

Breast cancer pathology reports contain valuable information about the histologic diagnosis, prognostic factors and predictive indicators of therapeutic response. A second opinion may be requested by medical oncologists and surgeons, when a patient is referred from another institution for treatment. We report the experience with pathology second opinion in selected patients referred to the Breast Oncology Unit. 205 cases referred to the Breast Oncology Unit were selected for second opinion after clinical evaluation, between 2002 and 2012. The cases reviewed included 102 core needle biopsies, 88 surgical specimens from the breast and 18 lymphadenopathies, 14 from the axillary region. Pathology second opinion was based on a review of hematoxylin-eosin preparations, recuts of submitted paraffin blocks and written external pathology reports. Immunohistochemical studies for hormone receptors, HER2, myoepithelial cells, and other markers were performed in selected cases. A case was reclassified as showing major change when second opinion showed a potential for significant change in prognosis or treatment. Otherwise, it was considered to represent minor change or to be concordant. In 52 cases (25.4%), the pathology review showed changes. Thirty-three (16%) patients were reclassified for major changes and 19 (9.2%) as minor changes. In six patients, more than one major change was identified. The major discrepancies identified were related to the histologic classification (12 cases), the presence or absence of invasion in ductal carcinoma (15 cases), the results of hormone receptors (5 cases), and HER2 (7 cases). Major changes in histologic classification included two cases diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma and reclassified as benign, four cases with diagnosis of breast cancer reclassified as metastatic lung cancer, one case diagnosed as small cell carcinoma of lung metastatic in the breast, reclassified as primary carcinoma of the breast, and three cases with diagnosis of breast cancer in the axilla reclassified as primary cutaneous adnexal carcinomas (2) and metastatic melanoma (1), respectively. In two cases, the histologic type of the primary breast tumor was changed. Second opinion in breast pathology may uncover significant discrepancies that impact on patient management and prognosis. Major discrepancies are most frequently related to the assessment of the presence or absence of invasion in ductal carcinoma, the results of predictive makers of therapeutic response, and the differential diagnosis of breast cancer and nonmammary tumors in the breast, the axilla, and at distant sites.

Do first opinions affect second opinions?

BACKGROUND

Second medical opinions have become commonplace and even mandatory in some health-care systems, as variations in diagnosis, treatment or prognosis may emerge among physicians.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether physicians' judgment is affected by another medical opinion given to a patient.

DESIGN

Orthopedic surgeons and neurologists filled out questionnaires presenting eight hypothetical clinical scenarios with suggested treatments. One group of physicians (in each specialty) was told what the other physician's opinion was (study group), and the other group was not told what it was (control group).

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 332 physicians in Israel: 172 orthopedic surgeons (45.9% of their population) and 160 neurologists (64.0% of their population).

MEASUREMENTS

Scoring was by choice of less or more interventional treatment in the scenarios. We used χ(2) tests and repeated measures ANOVA to compare these scores between the two groups. We also fitted a cumulative ordinal regression to account for the dependence within each physician's responses.

RESULTS

Orthopedic surgeons in the study group chose a more interventionist treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention than those in the control group [F (1, 170) =4.6, p=0.03; OR=1.437, 95% CI 1.115-1.852]. Evaluating this effect separately in each scenario showed that in four out of the eight scenarios, they chose a more interventional treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention (scenario 1, p=0.039; scenario 2, p<0.001; scenario 3, p=0.033; scenario 6, p<0.001). These effects were insignificant among the neurologists [F (1,158) =0.44, p=0.51; OR=1.087, 95% CI 0.811-1.458]. In both specialties there were no differences in responses by level of clinical experience [orthopedic surgeons: F (2, 166) =0.752, p=0.473; neurologists: F (2,154) =1.951, p=0.146].

CONCLUSIONS

The exploratory survey showed that in some cases physicians' judgments may be affected by other physicians' opinions, but unaffected in other cases. Weighing previous opinions may yield a more informed clinical decision, yet physicians may be unintentionally influenced by previous opinions. Second opinion has the potential to improve the clinical decision-making processes, and mechanisms are needed to reconcile discrepant opinions.

Sarcoma: concordance between initial diagnosis and centralized expert review in a population-based study within three European regions

BACKGROUND

Sarcomas represent a heterogeneous group of tumors. Accurate determination of histological diagnosis and prognostic factors is critical for the delineation of treatment strategies. The contribution of second opinion (SO) to improve diagnostic accuracy has been suggested for sarcoma but has never been established in population-based studies.

METHODS

Histological data of patients diagnosed with sarcoma in Rhone-Alpes (France), Veneto (Italy) and Aquitaine (France) over a 2-year period were collected. Initial diagnoses were systematically compared with SO from regional and national experts.

RESULTS

Of 2016 selected patients, 1463 (73%) matched the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Full concordance between primary diagnosis and SO (the first pathologist and the expert reached identical conclusions) was observed in 824 (56%) cases, partial concordance (identical diagnosis of connective tumor but different grade or histological subtype) in 518 (35%) cases and complete discordance (benign versus malignant, different histological type or invalidation of the diagnosis of sarcoma) in 121 (8%) cases. The major discrepancies were related to histological grade (n = 274, 43%), histological type (n = 144, 24%), subtype (n = 18, 3%) and grade plus subtype or grade plus histological type (n = 178, 29%).

CONCLUSION

More than 40% of first histological diagnoses were modified at second reading, possibly resulting in different treatment decisions.

Recent trends in quality, patient safety, and error reduction in nongyn cytology

This article reviews recent trends in nongyn cytology with an emphasis on error reduction, second opinion, and critical diagnosis. Compared with the surgical pathology literature, there is only a limited number of reports addressing these topics in nongyn cytology. Discussion of the error literature in nongyn cytology is presented with the intent to better identify error-prone cytology cases that could prompt intradepartmental consultation or an outside cytology expert's second opinion. The cytology second-opinion literature is also reviewed with the recommendation that interinstitutional second opinions add value to patient care. Last, the recent concept of critical value (critical diagnosis) in cytopathology is presented. All these initiatives promote patient safety, improve quality, decrease errors, and benefit patients.

Extra-departmental anatomic pathology expert consultation inTaiwan: a research grant supported 4-year experience

BACKGROUND

This report analyzed a research project supported nationwide expert consultation of anatomic pathology in Taiwan.

METHODS

The data were collected from the requisitions and consultation reports of 2,686 cases in this project from 2003 to 2006. The number of cases, tissue origin, additional special stains, turnaround time (TAT), concordance, discordance, referring pathologists, and consultants were analyzed.

RESULTS

Skin, hematopoietic system, and bone and soft tissue were the most common (48.3%) specimens sent for consultation. The tentative diagnosis and consultation diagnosis were discordant in 1,074 (64.3%) cases. Major discrepancy was seen in 205 (12.3%) cases, of which 66.8% were changed from malignant to benign, 21.0% were changed from benign to malignant, whereas 12.2% were changed from one category of malignancy to another. Additional special stains were performed on 38.7% of cases and hematology specimen was the most frequent. The mean TAT was 3.4 days. Pathologists working in institutes having fewer pathologists sent more cases for consultation. The opinion of the estimated annual consultation rate from the pathologists in Taiwan was 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This program was beneficial simply by helping the referring pathologists in the workup and diagnosis. This result made the entire program a reasonable quality improvement program.

Epidemiological evaluation of concordance between initial diagnosis and central pathology review in a comprehensive and prospective series of sarcoma patients in the Rhone-Alpes region

Background

Sarcomas are rare malignant tumors. Accurate initial histological diagnosis is essential for adequate management. We prospectively assessed the medical management of all patients diagnosed with sarcoma in a European region over a one-year period to identify the quantity of first diagnosis compared to central expert review (CER).

Methods

Histological data of all patients diagnosed with sarcoma in Rhone-Alpes between March 2005 and Feb 2006 were collected. Primary diagnoses were systematically compared with second opinion from regional and national experts.

Results

Of 448 patients included, 366 (82%) matched the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of these, 199 (54%) had full concordance between primary diagnosis and second opinion (the first pathologist and the expert reached identical conclusions), 97 (27%) had partial concordance (identical diagnosis of conjonctive tumor but different grade or subtype), and 70 (19%) had complete discordance (different histological type or invalidation of the diagnosis of sarcoma). The major discrepancies were related to histological grade (n = 68, 19%), histological type (n = 39, 11%), subtype (n = 17, 5%), and grade plus subtype or grade plus histological type (n = 43, 12%).

Conclusions

Over 45% of first histological diagnoses were modified at second reading, possibly resulting in different treatment decisions. Systematic second expert opinion improves the quality of diagnosis and possibly the management of patients.

Interinstitutional consultation in fine-needle aspiration cytopathology: a study of 742 cases

BACKGROUND

The importance of interinstitutional consultation (IC) has been documented across a variety of surgical pathology organ systems. However, to the authors' knowledge, few studies exist regarding this practice within cytopathology and specifically within fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC).

METHODS

All FNAC cases between September 2002 and January 2007 were reviewed. Original diagnoses and second opinion diagnoses (SODs) were categorized as either no diagnostic disagreement, or minor diagnostic disagreement, or major diagnostic disagreement, and the latter was defined as either a 2-step deviation on a scale of "unsatisfactory, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant" or a change in treatment and/or prognosis. Outcome was determined by a review of the electronic medical record.

RESULTS

Among 742 FNAC cases from outside laboratories, there were minor disagreements in 132 cases (17.8%) and major disagreements in 69 cases (9.3%) compared with the SODs from the authors' laboratory. Follow-up was available for 60 of 69 major discrepancies. The SOD was supported on follow-up in 65% of major discrepancies, and the initial diagnosis was supported better in 33% of major discrepancies. In 55% of cases in which the original institution diagnosis was supported better, either no case slides were received for examination or the slides contained material that was considered nondiagnostic by the authors. An SOD prompted a change in clinical management in 32 of 742 patients (4.3%). Aspirates that were most prone to change in management or therapy were from the thyroid (13 cases), neck (soft tissue and lymph nodes; 9 cases), salivary gland (2 cases), and liver (2 cases). Of 60 major diagnostic disagreements, board-certified cytopathologists rendered an SOD in 44 cases, and 75% of the diagnoses were supported better by follow-up, whereas pathologists who were not board certified in cytopathology had only 38% of SODs supported.

CONCLUSIONS

Of 742 FNAC cases, 9.3% had major diagnostic disagreements; and, in 4.3%, patient management and therapy were altered. These results were similar to studies in surgical pathology emphasizing the importance of IC in FNAC. The authors concluded that FNAC IC benefits patient care.

[Impact of pathological review by an expert on the diagnosis and management of patients with cancer in Aquitania]

AIMS

The goal of this work was to evaluate the impact of expert pathological second opinion on the diagnosis and management of patients with cancer, in a French region (Aquitaine) and with an economic point of view.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was first quantitative, performed retrospectively on all cases of cancer, voluntary sent for a second opinion to an expert pathologist of two centers. Secondly, we restricted the study to lymphoid, melanocytic and soft tissue tumors sent for second opinion. We considered that the expert review had an important diagnostic impact either when the initial pathologist sent the specimen to identify or classify malignant tumor or hesitated between benign and malignant tumor or had no hypothesis, or if there were discordant diagnoses (malignant/benign) between the two pathologists. We considered that the expert review had a high therapeutic impact if the disagreement between initial and expert diagnoses induced a complete modification in therapy. We evaluated the cost of second opinion for the expert centers and the cost of care management.

RESULTS

Over the year 2006, the expert centers received 5077 lesions for consultation: 3769 specimens were sent by a pathologist for a second review, 1324 by pathologists of Aquitania and of these, 751 samples were submitted for lymphoid (55%), soft tissues (30%) or melanocytic tumors (15%). There was an important diagnostic impact for 75% of the samples; the impact of the expert review on patient management was considered high for 46% of specimens and the expert pathological diagnosis modified the clinical prognosis for 40% of the specimens. We estimated that for 53 discordant diagnoses (malignant/benign), second opinion allowed an economy of 500,000 euro.

CONCLUSION

Expert second opinion is very important not only for diagnosis and management for patient with cancer but also for economic reasons.

Happenings in Histopathology – A Post-World War II Perspective

There have been several important developments in the practice of histopathology since World War II; those reviewed in this lecture are grouped under 4 headings: new techniques (cytopathology, electron microscopy, immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology), organisational issues (recruitment, training and certification, subspecialties, quality control and consultations), ethical and legal issues (service costs, and the ownership and uses of biopsy tissues) and globalisation (international associations, standardised classification and nomenclature, and telepathology). Advances in the fields of molecular pathology and telepathology are expected to have the greatest impact on the practice of pathology in the next decade. Key words: Anatomic pathology, Organisation, Globalisation, Telepathology

Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine

The great majority of medical diagnoses are made using automatic, efficient cognitive processes, and these diagnoses are correct most of the time. This analytic review concerns the exceptions: the times when these cognitive processes fail and the final diagnosis is missed or wrong. We argue that physicians in general underappreciate the likelihood that their diagnoses are wrong and that this tendency to overconfidence is related to both intrinsic and systemically reinforced factors. We present a comprehensive review of the available literature and current thinking related to these issues. The review covers the incidence and impact of diagnostic error, data on physician overconfidence as a contributing cause of errors, strategies to improve the accuracy of diagnostic decision making, and recommendations for future research.