Surgical pathology--second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? Error or diagnostic variation?

CONTEXT A variety of methodologies have been used to report error rates in surgical pathology within the peer-reviewed medical literature. The media has selectively and superficially reported these error rates creating a climate of disinformation between physicians and the public. OBJECTIVES To review the medical literature on diagnostic error in surgical pathology and summarize and compare these data with selected reports in the print and broadcast media. DESIGN A search of the medical literature from the National Library of Medicine database using the heading "Error and Pathology Diagnosis." RESULTS Three thousand nine hundred ninety-two citations were found, of which 83 directly measured in some manner errors in surgical and cytopathology. Major error rates ranged from 1.5% to 5.7% globally for institutional consults. Error rates were less, 0.26% to 1.2% for global in-house prospective review and 4.0% for in-house and retrospective blinded review. Error rates also varied by anatomic site: skin, institutional consult, 1.4%; prostate, institutional consult, 0.5%; and thyroid, institutional consult, 7.0%. Error rates reported in citations used by the Wall Street Journal were as follows: prostate, Gleason score changed by 1 point, 44% and resultant change in treatment for prostate cancer, 10%; for breast, altered lumpectomy or mastectomy plan, 8%; and diagnosis changed for thyroid lesions, 18%. Errors in second opinion on breast lesions (single pathologist author for the study) fall within the range of global reviews. Errors for second opinions on prostate cancer were principally 81% upgrades in Gleason score for prostate core needle biopsies. However, this resulted in an upgrade of patient risk category in only 10.8% of patients. Data for the article on change in diagnosis of thyroid lesions were incomplete. There appeared to be 3 significant diagnostic errors (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS Pathology is not immune to the power of the media to create concern about accuracy of diagnosis in surgical pathology and cytopathology. Detailed analysis of the medical literature cited by the media determines that painting the big picture and hitting the highlights can be profoundly misleading.

[1]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. , 2002, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  A. Abt,et al.  The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. , 1995, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[3]  Bark Cj,et al.  Surgical Pathology Signout: Routine Review of Every Case by a Second Pathologist , 1993 .

[4]  K. Maclennan,et al.  Surgical pathological second opinion in thyroid malignancy: impact on patients' management and prognosis. , 2005, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[5]  R. C. Ulirsch,et al.  Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses: a prospective audit of three thousand cases. , 1984, American journal of clinical pathology.

[6]  M. Trotter,et al.  Interpretation of skin biopsies by general pathologists: diagnostic discrepancy rate measured by blinded review. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[7]  D. Elder,et al.  Pathology review of cases presenting to a multidisciplinary pigmented lesion clinic. , 2002, Archives of dermatology.

[8]  R. Safrin,et al.  Surgical pathology sign-out. Routine review of every case by a second pathologist. , 1993, American Journal of Surgical Pathology.

[9]  R. Hoda,et al.  Rosai and Ackerman???s Surgical Pathology , 2004 .

[10]  Fausto J. Rodriguez,et al.  Rosai and Ackerman’s Surgical Pathology, 9th ed. , 2004 .

[11]  Anthony V D'Amico,et al.  The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 2004, Urologic oncology.

[12]  D. Miller,et al.  Pathology Slide Review in Gynecologic Oncology , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  P. Maurette,et al.  [To err is human: building a safer health system]. , 2002, Annales francaises d'anesthesie et de reanimation.

[14]  A. Wall,et al.  Book ReviewTo Err is Human: building a safer health system Kohn L T Corrigan J M Donaldson M S Washington DC USA: Institute of Medicine/National Academy Press ISBN 0 309 06837 1 $34.95 , 2000 .

[15]  R. Sirota,et al.  Derivation of a new hematopoietic cell line with endothelial features from a patient with transformed myeloproliferative syndrome , 2000, Cancer.

[16]  A. C. Lind,et al.  Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. , 1995, American journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  J. Rosai,et al.  Tumors of the thyroid gland , 1992 .

[18]  W. Westra,et al.  The impact of second opinion surgical pathology on the practice of head and neck surgery: A decade experience at a large referral hospital , 2002, Head & neck.

[19]  J. Epstein,et al.  Lesions missed on prostate biopsies in cases sent in for consultation , 2003, The Prostate.

[20]  E. Wiley,et al.  Diagnostic discrepancies in breast specimens subjected to gross reexamination. , 1999, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[21]  E. Foucar.  'Individuality' in the specialty of surgical pathology: self-expression or just another source of diagnostic error? , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[22]  J. Epstein.  The diagnosis and reporting of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in core needle biopsy specimens , 1996, Cancer.

[23]  P J Gallagher,et al.  Local Audit of Surgical Pathology: 18 Month's Experience of Peer Review‐Based Quality Assessment in an English Teaching Hospital , 1992, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[24]  W. Frankel,et al.  The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. , 2001, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[25]  J. Rosai,et al.  Borderline Epithelial Lesions of the Breast , 1991, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[26]  S J Schnitt,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility in the Diagnosis of Ductal Proliferative Breast Lesions Using Standardized Criteria , 1992, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[27]  T. Caeiro,et al.  [Error in medicine]. , 2004, Medicina.

[28]  Monica Morrow,et al.  Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions , 2002, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[29]  J. Epstein,et al.  A web‐based tutorial improves practicing pathologists' Gleason grading of images of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy , 2000, Cancer.

[30]  P. Bejarano,et al.  Prostate Biopsy Interpretation , 1996 .

[31]  Anthony V D'Amico,et al.  Accurate Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsies by general pathologists. , 2003, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[32]  Eric Schneider,et al.  Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[33]  J. Epstein,et al.  Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. , 1998, Urology.

[34]  J. S. Tsung.  Institutional Pathology Consultation , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[35]  Thomas H. Lee.  A broader concept of medical errors. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[36]  A. Patchefsky,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of histopathological features in stage II breast cancer , 1985, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.