We have located links that may give you full text access.
Characteristics of a Breast Pathology Consultation Practice.
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 2017 April
CONTEXT: - Intradepartmental consultation is a routine practice commonly used for new diagnoses. Expert interinstitutional case review provides insight into particularly challenging cases.
OBJECTIVE: - To investigate the practice of breast pathology consultation at a large tertiary care center.
DESIGN: - We reviewed breast pathology cases sent for private consultation and internal cases reviewed by multiple pathologists at a tertiary center. Requisitions and reports were evaluated for diagnostic reason for consultation, rate of multiple pathologist review at the tertiary center, use of immunohistochemistry, and, for private consultation cases, type of sender and concordance with the outside diagnosis.
RESULTS: - In the 985 private consultation cases, the most frequent reasons for review were borderline atypia (292 of 878; 33.3%), papillary lesion classification (151 of 878; 17.2%), evaluating invasion (123 of 878; 14%), subtyping carcinoma (75 of 878; 8.5%), and spindle cell (67 of 878; 7.6%) and fibroepithelial (65 of 878; 7.4%) lesion classification. Of 4981 consecutive internal cases, 358 (7.2%) were reviewed, most frequently for borderline atypia (90 of 358; 25.1%), subtyping carcinoma (63 of 358; 17.6%), staging/prognostic features (59 of 358; 16.5%), fibroepithelial lesion classification (45 of 358; 12.6%), evaluating invasion (37 of 358; 10.3%), and papillary (20 of 358; 5.6%) and spindle cell (18 of 358; 5.0%) lesion classification. Of all internal cases, those with a final diagnosis of atypia had a significantly higher rate of review (58 of 241; 24.1%) than those with benign (119 of 2933; 4.1%) or carcinoma (182 of 1807; 10.1%) diagnoses. Immunohistochemistry aided in diagnosis of 39.7% (391 of 985) and 21.2% (76 of 359) of consultation and internally reviewed cases, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: - This study confirms areas of breast pathology that represent diagnostic challenge and supports that pathologists are appropriately using expert consultation.
OBJECTIVE: - To investigate the practice of breast pathology consultation at a large tertiary care center.
DESIGN: - We reviewed breast pathology cases sent for private consultation and internal cases reviewed by multiple pathologists at a tertiary center. Requisitions and reports were evaluated for diagnostic reason for consultation, rate of multiple pathologist review at the tertiary center, use of immunohistochemistry, and, for private consultation cases, type of sender and concordance with the outside diagnosis.
RESULTS: - In the 985 private consultation cases, the most frequent reasons for review were borderline atypia (292 of 878; 33.3%), papillary lesion classification (151 of 878; 17.2%), evaluating invasion (123 of 878; 14%), subtyping carcinoma (75 of 878; 8.5%), and spindle cell (67 of 878; 7.6%) and fibroepithelial (65 of 878; 7.4%) lesion classification. Of 4981 consecutive internal cases, 358 (7.2%) were reviewed, most frequently for borderline atypia (90 of 358; 25.1%), subtyping carcinoma (63 of 358; 17.6%), staging/prognostic features (59 of 358; 16.5%), fibroepithelial lesion classification (45 of 358; 12.6%), evaluating invasion (37 of 358; 10.3%), and papillary (20 of 358; 5.6%) and spindle cell (18 of 358; 5.0%) lesion classification. Of all internal cases, those with a final diagnosis of atypia had a significantly higher rate of review (58 of 241; 24.1%) than those with benign (119 of 2933; 4.1%) or carcinoma (182 of 1807; 10.1%) diagnoses. Immunohistochemistry aided in diagnosis of 39.7% (391 of 985) and 21.2% (76 of 359) of consultation and internally reviewed cases, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: - This study confirms areas of breast pathology that represent diagnostic challenge and supports that pathologists are appropriately using expert consultation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app