Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Institutional pathology consultation.

Jeffrey S H Tsung1

  • 1Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Koo Foundation, Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan. tsung@mail.kfcc.org.tw

The American Journal of Surgical Pathology
|April 24, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A unique pancreatic tumor with exclusive hepatocytic differentiation.

Annals of clinical and laboratory science·2006
Same author

Diabetic mastopathy in type II diabetes mellitus.

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi·2005
Same author

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma component.

Annals of clinical and laboratory science·2005
See all related articles

A second opinion on pathology slides before cancer treatment is crucial. While most diagnoses align, some cases reveal critical information gaps or major disagreements, significantly impacting patient care and treatment plans.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Pathology
  • Medical Diagnostics

Background:

  • Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center is Taiwan's sole cancer center.
  • A policy mandates reviewing external pathology diagnoses before initiating therapy.
  • Oncology division actively pursues second opinions on pathology slides.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the frequency of diagnostic discrepancies in second-opinion pathology slide reviews.
  • To determine the impact of these discrepancies on patient care.
  • To advocate for the standardization of second pathology reviews.

Main Methods:

  • A 1-year retrospective study of pathology slide reviews.
  • Classification of discrepancies into categories: no disagreement, missing information, and major disagreement.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of 715 cases with external diagnoses.

    • Main Results:

    • 94% of cases (673/715) showed no diagnostic disagreement.
    • 5.2% of cases (35/673) lacked pertinent information (Category B).
    • Major diagnostic disagreements (Category C) occurred in 16% of cases (42/715), altering therapeutic plans.

    Conclusions:

    • Second pathology slide review identifies critical cases requiring therapeutic plan changes.
    • This review ensures quality care and mitigates medicolegal risks.
    • Standardizing second pathology reviews, supported by professional organizations and insurers, is recommended.