Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 91))

Abstract

The level of accuracy of diagnosis in general histopathological practice appears to be high, although the number of published studies is few [1–3]. The clinically significant discrepancy rate between the original and reviewed or audited diagnoses in these studies varies from 0.26% to 1.2%, with the lower figure coming from a North American community hospital [3] and the higher levels from a British University Teaching Hospital [2]. The difference does not appear to reflect variations in case mix at the two institutions because the details given suggest that the errors were often the result of oversights by the reporting pathologist and that the interpretive errors were mainly common, rather than rare, problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Whitehead ME, Fitzwater JE, Lindley SK, Kern SB, Ulirsch RC, Winecoff WF. Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses; a prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am J Clin Pathol 81:487–491, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ramsay AD, Gallagher PJ. Local audit of surgical Pathology. 18 months’ experience of peer review-based quality assessment in an English teaching hospital. Am J Surg Pathol 16:476–582, 1992.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology signout. Routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol 17:1190–1192, 1993.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Prescott RJ, Wells S, Bisset DL, Banerjee SS, Harris M. Audit of tumour histopathology review by a regional oncology centre. J Clin Pathol 48:245–249, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Baker LH, Benjamin RS. Histologic frequency of disseminated soft tissue sarcomas in adults (abstr). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19:324.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Presant CA, Russell WO, Alexander RW, Fu YS. Soft tissue and bone sarcoma histopathology peer review: The frequency of disagreement in diagnosis and the need for second pathology opinions. The South Eastern Cancer Study Group experience. J Clin Oncol 4:1658–1661, 1986.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shiraki M, Enterline HT, Brooks JJ, Cooper NS, Hirsche S, Roth JA, Rao UN, Enzinger FM, Amato DA, Borden EC. Pathologic analysis fo advanced adult soft tissue sarcomas, bone sarcomas and mesotheliomas. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] experience. Cancer 64:484–490, 1989.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Alvegard TA, Berg NO. Histopathology peer review of high-grade soft tissue sarcoma: The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group experience. J Clin Oncol 7:1845–1852, 1989.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris M, Hartley AL, Blair V, Birch JM, Banerjee SS, Freemont AJ, McClure J, McWilliam LJ. Sarcomas in North West England: I Histopathological peer review. Br J Cancer 64:315–320, 1991.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hartley AL, Blair V, Harris M, Birch JM, Banerjee SS, Freemont AJ, McClure J, McWilliam LJ. Sarcomas in North West England: II Incidence. Br J Cancer 64:1145–1150, 1991.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weinstein RS. Telepathology comes of age in Norway. Hum Pathol 22:511–513, 1991.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nordrum I, Engum B, Rinde E, Finseth A, Ericsson H, Kearney M, Stalsberg H, Eide TJ. Remote frozen section service: A telepathology project in Northern Norway. Hum Pathol 22:514–518, 1991.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Oberholzer M, Fischer H-R, Christen H, Gerber S, Bruhlmann M, Mihatsch M, Famos M, Winkler C, Fehr P, Bachthold L, Kayser K. Telepathology with an integrated services digital network — a new tool for image transfer in surgical pathology: A preliminary report. Hum Pathol 24:1078–1085, 1993.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Harris, M., Hartley, A.L. (1997). Value of peer review of pathology in soft tissue sarcomas. In: Verweij, J., Pinedo, H.M., Suit, H.D. (eds) Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Present Achievements and Future Prospects. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 91. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6121-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-6121-7_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7805-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-6121-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics