Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 26, 2026

Rat Model of the Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS) Procedure
Published on: August 14, 2017
The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology
G K Hahm1, T H Niemann, J G Lucas
1Department of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Objective:
The value of routine second opinion review of liver and gastrointestinal pathologic material was evaluated to determine whether there were discrepancies in diagnoses and if these discrepancies had an impact on treatment or prognosis.
Materials And Methods:
All gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary histopathology referral diagnoses made during a 1-year period for patients being treated at Ohio State University Medical Center were compared with the outside pathologic diagnosis. All major discrepant diagnoses were reviewed by at least 2 pathologists. Diagnoses were classified as no diagnostic disagreement, diagnostic disagreement, or no diagnostic disagreement but pertinent information missing or terminology unclear. Discrepant cases were also classified according to the clinical significance of the discrepancy.
Results:
Pathology reports from 194 hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal cases were reviewed. Of the hepatobiliary cases, 57 (64.8%) of 88 cases showed no discrepancies. Discrepancies were noted in 31 cases (35.2%), including missing information or unclear terminology in the diagnosis in 23 cases (26.1%) and diagnostic disagreement in 8 cases (9.1%). Of the cases with discrepancies, 6 (6.8%) were of major significance. Of the gastrointestinal cases, 87 (82.1%) of 106 cases showed no discrepancies. Discrepancies were noted in 19 cases (17.9%), including missing or unclear information in 3 cases (2.8%) and diagnostic disagreements in 16 cases (15.1%). The cases with discrepancies included 8 cases (7.5%) for which the change was of major clinical significance.
Conclusions:
Routine pathologic review of gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary cases revealed notable discrepancies in diagnoses. In 14 cases (7.2%), the change in diagnosis or additional information had a significant effect on the proper treatment or a significant prognostic implication. Routine review of all pertinent pathologic material should be performed on all patients being transferred to a second institution for treatment or second opinion.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Diseases of the Liver and Gallbladder
Cirrhosis is characterized by the scarring of hepatic lobules in the liver, which are replaced by fibrous tissue, affecting the liver's normal functioning. NAFLD, on the other hand, is caused by an excessive build-up of fat in the liver, not related to...
Appendicitis-II: Diagnostic Studies and Management
Diagnosing Appendicitis
It requires a multifaceted approach, starting with a detailed physical examination to pinpoint the location and nature of the pain and identify any associated symptoms. Laboratory tests play a crucial role. A complete Blood Count (CBC) typically reveals leukocytosis (an increased number of...
Serum Laboratory Studies, Stool Test, Breath Test
Ultrasound II: Endoscopic Ultrasound and FibroScan
Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS):
Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Pathophysiologic Assessment and Liver Function Test

