Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a pathology slide review on the management of gynecologic cancer patients. Materials and methods: Them edical records of referral patients, with the original pathologic diagnosis of gynecologic cancer treated at Chiang Mai University Hospital between January 2002...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chumnan Kietpeerakool, Bancha Changkasisri, Surapan Khunamornpong, Sumalee Siriaunkgul, Jatupol Srisomboon
Format: Journal
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=33646399453&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61862
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-61862
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-618622018-09-11T09:00:20Z Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer Chumnan Kietpeerakool Bancha Changkasisri Surapan Khunamornpong Sumalee Siriaunkgul Jatupol Srisomboon Medicine Objective: To evaluate the impact of a pathology slide review on the management of gynecologic cancer patients. Materials and methods: Them edical records of referral patients, with the original pathologic diagnosis of gynecologic cancer treated at Chiang Mai University Hospital between January 2002 and May 2003, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: During the study period, 402 cases were available for analysis. The slides reviewed were obtained from the following organs: cervix (305), ovary (33), endometrium (32), vulva (14), and others (17). In comparison between the diagnosis after slide review and the original referral diagnosis, the minor discrepancy rate was 41.5% (95% CI: 36.7-46.5%). The major discrepancy rate was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.3-12.2%) and the most common clinical consequence was the modification of planned surgery. There was no major diagnostic discrepancy in the vulvar specimens. Among patients with cervical neoplasia, there was a significantly lower rate of major discrepancy among patients with gross lesion than among those without (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Major diagnostic discrepancies were identified in 9% of referral patients with gynecologic cancer. A pathology slide review is strongly recommended before planning treatment to improve the quality of patient care. © 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd. 2018-09-11T09:00:20Z 2018-09-11T09:00:20Z 2006-06-01 Journal 17437563 17437555 2-s2.0-33646399453 10.1111/j.1743-7563.2006.00053.x https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=33646399453&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61862
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
topic Medicine
spellingShingle Medicine
Chumnan Kietpeerakool
Bancha Changkasisri
Surapan Khunamornpong
Sumalee Siriaunkgul
Jatupol Srisomboon
Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer
description Objective: To evaluate the impact of a pathology slide review on the management of gynecologic cancer patients. Materials and methods: Them edical records of referral patients, with the original pathologic diagnosis of gynecologic cancer treated at Chiang Mai University Hospital between January 2002 and May 2003, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: During the study period, 402 cases were available for analysis. The slides reviewed were obtained from the following organs: cervix (305), ovary (33), endometrium (32), vulva (14), and others (17). In comparison between the diagnosis after slide review and the original referral diagnosis, the minor discrepancy rate was 41.5% (95% CI: 36.7-46.5%). The major discrepancy rate was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.3-12.2%) and the most common clinical consequence was the modification of planned surgery. There was no major diagnostic discrepancy in the vulvar specimens. Among patients with cervical neoplasia, there was a significantly lower rate of major discrepancy among patients with gross lesion than among those without (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Major diagnostic discrepancies were identified in 9% of referral patients with gynecologic cancer. A pathology slide review is strongly recommended before planning treatment to improve the quality of patient care. © 2006 The Authors Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
format Journal
author Chumnan Kietpeerakool
Bancha Changkasisri
Surapan Khunamornpong
Sumalee Siriaunkgul
Jatupol Srisomboon
author_facet Chumnan Kietpeerakool
Bancha Changkasisri
Surapan Khunamornpong
Sumalee Siriaunkgul
Jatupol Srisomboon
author_sort Chumnan Kietpeerakool
title Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer
title_short Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer
title_full Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer
title_fullStr Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer
title_full_unstemmed Pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer
title_sort pathology slide review is mandatory before planning treatment for referral patients with gynecologic cancer
publishDate 2018
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=33646399453&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/61862
_version_ 1681425699795107840