Audit of tumour histopathology reviewed by a regional oncology centre.

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10541/99102
Title:
Audit of tumour histopathology reviewed by a regional oncology centre.
Authors:
Prescott, R J; Wells, S; Bisset, D L; Banerjee, Saumitra S; Harris, Martin
Abstract:
AIMS: To analyse the diagnostic differences in reporting tumour histopathology between a district general hospital and a regional oncology centre. METHODS: Tumour histopathology reports (n = 227) extracted from Bolton General Hospital files between 1988 and 1992 were compared with the corresponding Christie Hospital (oncology centre) reports, the same material having been seen at both hospitals. RESULTS: Diagnostic agreement existed in 77% of all cases. The incidence of major discrepancies was 8.37%. Of the diagnoses, 19 (36%) cases involved major discrepancies and 34 (64%) cases minor discrepancies. Most discrepancies occurred in the lymphoma group and involved subclassification of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ki1 anaplastic large cell lymphoma and T cell rich B cell lymphoma were problematic diagnoses. The correct grading of follicle centre cell lymphomas using the Kiel classification was another problem area. In 19 cases certain aspects of immunohistochemistry produced discrepancies. In one case an incorrect diagnosis was made at the oncology centre and in another both centres gave an incorrect diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Areas of diagnostic difficulty mainly involve the subclassification of lymphomas. Review of tumour pathology by experts is recommended, at least in certain categories, to ensure correct diagnosis and uniformity in subclassification of tumours.
Affiliation:
Department of Histopathology, Bolton General Hospital.
Citation:
Audit of tumour histopathology reviewed by a regional oncology centre. 1995, 48 (3):245-9 J. Clin. Pathol.
Journal:
Journal of Clinical Pathology
Issue Date:
Mar-1995
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10541/99102
DOI:
10.1136/jcp.48.3.245
PubMed ID:
7730487
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
0021-9746
Appears in Collections:
All Christie Publications

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorPrescott, R Jen
dc.contributor.authorWells, Sen
dc.contributor.authorBisset, D Len
dc.contributor.authorBanerjee, Saumitra Sen
dc.contributor.authorHarris, Martinen
dc.date.accessioned2010-05-18T12:11:33Z-
dc.date.available2010-05-18T12:11:33Z-
dc.date.issued1995-03-
dc.identifier.citationAudit of tumour histopathology reviewed by a regional oncology centre. 1995, 48 (3):245-9 J. Clin. Pathol.en
dc.identifier.issn0021-9746-
dc.identifier.pmid7730487-
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/jcp.48.3.245-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/99102-
dc.description.abstractAIMS: To analyse the diagnostic differences in reporting tumour histopathology between a district general hospital and a regional oncology centre. METHODS: Tumour histopathology reports (n = 227) extracted from Bolton General Hospital files between 1988 and 1992 were compared with the corresponding Christie Hospital (oncology centre) reports, the same material having been seen at both hospitals. RESULTS: Diagnostic agreement existed in 77% of all cases. The incidence of major discrepancies was 8.37%. Of the diagnoses, 19 (36%) cases involved major discrepancies and 34 (64%) cases minor discrepancies. Most discrepancies occurred in the lymphoma group and involved subclassification of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ki1 anaplastic large cell lymphoma and T cell rich B cell lymphoma were problematic diagnoses. The correct grading of follicle centre cell lymphomas using the Kiel classification was another problem area. In 19 cases certain aspects of immunohistochemistry produced discrepancies. In one case an incorrect diagnosis was made at the oncology centre and in another both centres gave an incorrect diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Areas of diagnostic difficulty mainly involve the subclassification of lymphomas. Review of tumour pathology by experts is recommended, at least in certain categories, to ensure correct diagnosis and uniformity in subclassification of tumours.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectFemale Genital Canceren
dc.subjectCanceren
dc.subjectSkin Canceren
dc.subjectSoft Tissue Canceren
dc.subjectTesticular Canceren
dc.subject.meshCancer Care Facilities-
dc.subject.meshDiagnostic Errors-
dc.subject.meshEngland-
dc.subject.meshFemale-
dc.subject.meshGenital Neoplasms, Female-
dc.subject.meshHospitals, District-
dc.subject.meshHospitals, General-
dc.subject.meshHumans-
dc.subject.meshLymphoma-
dc.subject.meshMale-
dc.subject.meshMedical Audit-
dc.subject.meshNeoplasms-
dc.subject.meshOncology Service, Hospital-
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.meshSkin Neoplasms-
dc.subject.meshSoft Tissue Neoplasms-
dc.subject.meshTesticular Neoplasms-
dc.titleAudit of tumour histopathology reviewed by a regional oncology centre.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Histopathology, Bolton General Hospital.en
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Clinical Pathologyen

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Christie are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.