|
Your pathologist as the hidden member of your team of doctors
Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but two sobering articles just out on the heterogenity of quality, completeness and accuracy of pathologic reports --why pathologic second opinions may make sense for some. Pathologic reports are often taken at face value by treating physicians.
Tumor boards are great institutions as they get all of the participants in the diagnosis and treatment together and get the slides looked at a second time.
Have not seen any article discussing how much these "errors or omission" actually affect treatment/recurrence/overall survival, but it is good that the "light of day" is being shone on this. The quality of care and of clinical trials can only get better as more attention is directed to the quality of pathologic services.
ABSTRACT: Variability in Gross and Microscopic Pathology Reporting in Excisional Biopsies of Breast Cancer Tissue [The Breast Journal; Subscribe]
Accurate and complete information in pathology reporting is essential since most breast cancer treatment decisions are based on pathologic findings. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has guidelines for breast cancer reporting; however, pathology reports remain variable. Data were collected on 91 consecutive breast cancer excisional biopsies from "outside slide review" (OSR) cases for a 2-year period to determine the variability in pathology reports in gross and microscopic examinations from 50 different outside community and university hospitals located primarily in the southwestern United States. From the gross pathology report, the following items were analyzed: measurement and weight of specimens, orientation provided by surgeons, number of blocks submitted, designation of margins, and whether margins were indicated as "shaved" or "perpendicular" in relation to the breast tissue at the time of grossing. From the final diagnoses, the following items were analyzed: type and size of tumor, and surgical margins. The results show that 100% of the reports documented the measurement of specimen size, and 30% documented the specimen weight. Surgeons provided orientation of the breast specimens in 65% of cases. Surgical margins were inked in 58%, while only 18% described how margins were submitted (either shaved or perpendicular to the mass). Only 30% of specimens were submitted in toto, 1% were submitted with an unknown amount of tissue, and 69% were submitted in representative sections with an average of 13 blocks for lumpectomies. In the final diagnoses, all reports had documentation of the tumor type and size of the invasive cancer; 26% of the final diagnoses had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and just 5% of those reports documented the size of the DCIS. The surgical margin status was reported in only 76% of the final diagnoses. This study shows that the pathology reports were heterogeneous with respect to reporting gross and microscopic final diagnoses from the variable hospitals.
ABSTRACT: Evaluation of Margin Status in Lumpectomy Specimens and Residual Breast Carcinoma [The Breast Journal; Subscribe]
Residual disease leads to most local recurrences, especially in those patients treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT). This study evaluates whether assessment of excisional biopsy margins accurately predicts the presence or absence of residual tumor in the lumpectomy bed. The margin status of 201 consecutive lumpectomy specimens of 178 infiltrating and 23 in situ breast carcinomas followed by reexcision were evaluated microscopically and classified as "positive" (tumor at the inked margins), "negative" (tumor more than 0.1 cm from the inked margins), "close" (tumor within 0.1 cm of the inked margins, but not transecting it), and "indeterminate" (biopsy not inked or fragmented). Tumor size and grade were also analyzed, as potential predictors for residual disease. Residual tumor was found in 41% of the patients: in 21% of the cases with negative margins, in 63% with positive margins, in 30% with close margins, and in 56% with indeterminate margins. In 37% of the positive and 70% of the close margin cases, no tumor was found in reexcised specimens. In 24% of the cases the residual disease was composed entirely of an in situ component of the same histologic type as the initial biopsy. No relationship was found between tumor size or grade and residual disease. For breast tumors, histologically negative and "close" biopsy margins do not guarantee complete excision. A number of factors seem to be responsible for the discrepancy between the margin status and the presence/absence of residual cancer in the lumpectomy bed.
|
Linear Mode
