Relevance of routine pathology review in cervical carcinoma

• Published in: Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology 2020-08, Vol.477 (2), p.301-307
• Main Authors: van Beekhuizen, Heleen J., Freulings, Mieloe D., Dasgupta, Shatavisha, van Kemenade, Folkert J., Ewing-Graham, Patricia C., van Doorn, Helena C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Brief Report; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - diagnosis; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - pathology; Cervical cancer; Cervical carcinoma; Cervix; Diagnostic Errors - statistics & numerical data; Female; Humans; Malignancy; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Pathology; Quality in Pathology; Retrospective Studies; Squamous cell carcinoma; Tumors; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology
• ISSN: 0945-6317; 1432-2307
• DOI: 10.1007/s00428-019-02743-1

To determine the impact of pathology review on the management of patients with cervical carcinoma, 264 reports of pathology review from 230 patients referred to Erasmus MC (2010–2012) were studied retrospectively. Discrepancies between pathologic diagnoses were classified as ‘major’ if they led to changes in treatment, and as ‘minor’ where there was no change. Patient and tumor characteristics were analyzed to identify the factors influencing these discrepancies. Fifty-eight (25.2%) discrepancies were identified; 28 (12.2%) were major, these resulted frequently from missing essential information, or discordant assessment of tumor invasion. Pathology review prevented under-treatment of 3.5%, over-treatment of 1.3%, treatment for incorrect malignancy of 1.3%, and enabled definitive treatment of 6.1% of patients. This highlights the importance of pathology review for appropriate management. Major discrepancies were rare (1%) for patients with macroscopic tumor and histologic diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma ( n  = 100). For these patients, yield of pathology review may be limited.