Research Article
Comparison of Original and Internal Pathology Reports Referred for UrothelialCarcinoma to Determine Rate of Discrepancies and the Impact on Treatment Decisions
Luisa SC* and De Castro GJColumbia University Medical Center, New York, USA
- *Corresponding Author:
- Luisa SC
Columbia University Medical Center
Urology Herbert Irving Pavilion, New York, USA
Tel: 19145888133
E-mail: bibamillion@aol.com
Received date: January 21, 2017; Accepted date: February 03, 2017; Published date: February 06, 2017
Citation: Luisa SC, De Castro GJ (2017) Comparison of Original and Internal Pathology Reports Referred for Urothelial Carcinoma to Determine Rate of Discrepancies and the Impact on Treatment Decisions. J Clin Exp Pathol 7:302. doi: 10.4172/2161-0681.1000302
Copyright: © 2017 Luisa SC, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the current study is to perform a standardized comparison of original and internal repeat pathology reviews of identical bladder specimens to identify discrepancies and characterize the impact of repeat review on treatment decisions as well as identify patients most likely to benefit from this practice.
Materials/Methods: Ninety-one patients with an outside diagnosis of urothelial cancer of the bladder were referred to our institution for repeat review of 91 bladder resection specimens and biopsies.
A discrepancy in either the presence or absence of muscularis propria and presence of invasive disease in the muscularis propria was deemed a “treatment-altering” characteristic, while presence of in situ, lymphovascular invasion, or micropapillary features was deemed a “clinically-significant” characteristic.
Results: After repeat review at our institution, 29.7% (27) specimens had treatment altering discrepancies, and 61.5% (56) specimens had at least one clinically-significant discrepancy.
Conclusion: Repeat review of referred bladder specimens frequently impacts treatment decisions in patients with urothelial carcinoma.
