Second Opinion Diagnosis Research Articles

Consultations in Eye Pathology: Experience at an Ophthalmology Specialty Hospital.

Ophthalmic pathology is a discipline that relies heavily on a knowledge of clinical ophthalmology. The diagnosis of ocular and periocular lesions can be challenging because some lesions and diseases are unique to this region, whereas others may demonstrate site-specific differences from nonocular counterparts. Because of these challenges, ocular and periocular biopsies are frequently referred to specialized ophthalmic pathology centers for second-opinion diagnoses. To analyze the referral patterns, diagnostic challenges, and diagnostic discrepancies for second-opinion referrals at a dedicated ophthalmic pathology laboratory with an emphasis on lesions of special interest in ophthalmic pathology. Data sources included the pathology records of all slides and blocks received in consultation at the referral eye pathology center between December 1, 2015, and December 1, 2022, the personal experience of senior authors, and published peer-reviewed literature. Corneal, intraocular, and conjunctival biopsies are the most common types of cases received in consultation without the referring pathologist's diagnosis, likely reflecting diagnostic challenges. Degenerative intraocular processes occasionally raise concern for a neoplasm. Conjunctival melanocytic lesions are the most common conjunctival biopsies referred for second-opinion diagnosis and require careful tissue sampling and clinical-pathologic correlation. Careful clinical-pathologic correlation, a high level of suspicion, and adequate sampling also are required for the accurate diagnosis of periocular sebaceous carcinoma. The diagnostic discrepancies involving uveal, retinal, conjunctival, eyelid, and temporal artery biopsies are most likely to adversely influence patient management and possible outcome. Such specimens may benefit from referral to specialized ophthalmic pathology laboratories.

The value of a specialized second-opinion pathological diagnosis for oral and maxillofacial lesions

ObjectivesAn error in the diagnosis of an oral or maxillofacial lesion could potentially be detrimental to a patient’s prognosis and management. Major discrepancies between the initial and subsequent diagnoses of head and neck pathologies range from 7 to 53%. This study determined the rate of discrepancies found in the diagnoses of oral and maxillofacial lesions after a second opinion in Saudi Arabia.MethodsA retrospective single-center study was conducted by oral and maxillofacial pathology consultants to review all cases referred for a second opinion to the oral and maxillofacial pathology laboratory between January 2015 and December 2020. If the second-opinion diagnosis matched the original diagnosis, this was described as “agreement.” If the second-opinion diagnosis did not match the original diagnosis but would not change the management or prognosis of a patient, this was classified as a “minor disagreement.” If the second-opinion diagnosis resulted in the changing of a patient’s management or prognosis, this was categorized as a “major disagreement.” Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare data between original and second-opinion diagnoses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsOf 138 cases, 59 (43%) had an initial diagnosis and a second-opinion diagnosis that were in major disagreement. The most common tumor for which there was a major disagreement was squamous cell carcinoma. No single factor influenced the occurrence of major disagreements.ConclusionsOur evaluation reiterates the importance of obtaining a second opinion from a specialist in oral and maxillofacial pathology to improve the diagnostic accuracy for lesions. A formal system for this step, in addition to the obtaining of adequate clinical and radiographic information about a patient, is mandatory for the review of difficult cases.

A second opinion pathology review improves the diagnostic concordance between prostate cancer biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Objectives:The Gleason scoring system is an essential tool for determining the treatment strategy in prostate cancer (PCa). However, the Gleason grade group (GGG) often differs between needle-core biopsy (NCB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. We investigated the diagnostic value of a second opinion pathology review using NCB specimens in PCa.Materials and Methods:We retrospectively evaluated 882 patients who underwent robot-assisted RP from January 2012 to September 2019. Of these, patients whose original biopsy specimens were obtained from another hospital and reviewed by the urological pathology expert at our institution were included in the study. Patients who received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded from the study. Weighted kappa (k) coefficients were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of each review.Results:A total of 497 patients were included in this study. Substantial agreement (weighted k = 0.783) in the GGG between initial- and second-opinion diagnoses based on NCB specimens was observed in 310 cases (62.4%). Although diagnoses based on a single opinion showed moderate agreement with the GGG of RP specimens (initial: 35.2%, weighted k = 0.522; second opinion; 38.8%, weighted k = 0.560), matching initial and second opinion diagnoses improved the concordance (42.9%, 133/310 cases) to substantial agreement (weighted k = 0.626).Conclusions:A second opinion of PCa pathology helps to improve the diagnostic accuracy of NCB specimens. However, over half of diagnoses that matched between the initial and second opinions differed from the diagnosis of RP specimens.

Impact of second-opinion dermatopathology reviews on surgical management of malignant neoplasms

Second-opinion review is linked to error reduction and treatment changes in anatomic pathology. We sought to establish the rate of diagnostic discrepancy identified by second-opinion dermatopathologic review and the effect on surgical treatment. Cases referred for treatment of a malignant neoplasm diagnosed by an outside pathologist were reviewed. The external and internal second-opinion dermatopathologic reports were compared. Discordance in diagnosis, subtype, and treatment change owing to second-opinion review was recorded. The referring pathologist's level of dermatopathologic training was also documented. A total of 358 cases were included. Dermatopathologic second-opinion diagnosis was discordant with the outside diagnosis in 37 of 358 cases (10.3%). In 32 of 358 cases (8.9%), second-opinion review resulted in a change in treatment, with 28 of 32 (87.5%) of these changes resulting in cancelled surgery. Dermatologists without dermatopathologic fellowship training had the highest rate of discordant diagnoses compared with pathologists and dermatopathologists. This was a retrospective study at a tertiary care facility. Second-opinion dermatopathologic review is associated with identification of discordant diagnoses and a substantial influence on treatment, with both cancellation of surgery and augmented management. Secondary pathologic review should be considered in high-volume surgical practices.

Diagnostic Differences in Expert Second-Opinion Consultation Cases at a Tertiary Sarcoma Center.

Soft tissue tumors are diagnostically challenging, and it is recommended that these are reported or reviewed by specialist soft tissue pathologists. We present our experience with second-opinion (consultation) cases in a specialist tertiary sarcoma center. The aim of this study was to determine areas of diagnostic difficulty in soft tissue pathology. We assessed 581 second-opinion cases which were reviewed by two experienced pathologists in a period of one year. There was 62% concordance between the original and the second-opinion diagnosis, with diagnostic discrepancy in 38%. The largest group of soft tissue neoplasms received for second opinion was fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors, and most major diagnostic problems were encountered in adipocytic and so-called “fibrohistiocytic” tumors. Major diagnostic errors impacting management were found in 148 cases (25%). Morphologic assessment of tumors, judicious use of molecular techniques, newer immunostains and their interpretation, along with importance of knowledge of rarer entities were found to be most useful in avoiding errors.

Factors predicting pathological upgrading after prostatectomy in patients with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer based on opinion-matched biopsy specimens.

The present study investigated the concordance between Gleason scores assigned to prostate biopsy specimens by outside pathologists and a urological pathology expert, and determined the risk of upgrading between opinion-matched Gleason grade group (GGG) 1 biopsy specimens and radical prostatectomy specimens. Between January 2012 and May 2018, 733 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients whose original biopsy specimens from outside hospitals were reviewed by a urological pathology expert Okayama University Hospital were included. Patients who had received neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of upgrading among GGG 1 diagnoses. A total of 403 patients were included in the present study. Agreement in GGG between initial and second-opinion diagnoses was present in 256 cases (63.5%). Although opinion-matched cases improved concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy specimen GGG compared with single-opinion cases (initial, 35.2%; second-opinion, 36.5%; matched, 41.4%), 71% (56/79) of cases classified as GGG 1 were upgraded after prostatectomy. Multivariate analysis revealed that prostate-specific antigen density and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 score were significant predictors of upgrading (odds ratio, 1.10; P=0.01; and odds ratio, 1.88; P=0.03, respectively). In conclusion, the GGG concordance rate between needle-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens was higher in opinion-matched cases; however, 71% of opinion-matched GGG1 cases were upgraded after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urologists should propose treatment strategies or further biopsy rather than active surveillance for patients with GGG1 and a high PSAD and/or PI-RADS score.

Second-Opinion Reads in Interstitial Lung Disease Imaging: Added Value of Subspecialty Interpretation.

The purpose of this study was to determine how often a second-opinion interpretation of interstitial lung disease (ILD) by an academic cardiothoracic radiologist is discordant with the initial interpretation by a nonacademic radiologists and how often the clinical diagnosis determined by multidisciplinary consensus agrees with the initial and second-opinion interpretations. This retrospective study included 364 consecutive second-opinion CT examination reports of imaging from nonacademic radiology practices from July 2014 to May 2016. The second-opinion interpretations, provided by seven fellowship-trained cardiothoracic radiologists, were compared with the initial interpretations and the clinical diagnoses determined by multidisciplinary consensus. Two hundred ninety-six consecutive reports met the inclusion criteria, and two hundred had findings of ILD. The initial interpretations lacked specific diagnoses in 41% of reports, but the second-opinion reports lacked specific diagnoses in only 7%. When a diagnosis was provided, the second-opinion diagnosis disagreed with the initial interpretation in 25% of cases. The clinical-consensus diagnosis was concordant with that of the academic radiologists 85% of the time but concordant with the initial interpretation only 44% of the time. The academic radiologists' diagnostic sensitivity was higher than that of the initial radiologists for the four most common diagnoses: usual interstitial pneumonitis (0.91 versus 0.4), sarcoidosis (0.94 versus 0.60), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (0.79 versus 0.17), and nonspecific interstitial pneumonitis (0.72 versus 0.14). Academic cardiothoracic radiologists were more likely to provide specific diagnoses for ILD, and these diagnoses were more likely to be concordant with the multidisciplinary consensus.

WhatsApp is an effective tool for obtaining second opinion in oral pathology practice.

The aim of this study was to find out the efficacy of WhatsApp application for obtaining second opinion on histopathological diagnosis in oral pathology practice. A total of 247 cases comprising of 34 different oral pathologies were photomicrographed using smartphone cameras through compound microscopes and sent for second opinion diagnosis (SOD) to 20 different oral pathologists using WhatsApp. Of 4795 (97.06%) total second opinion received, correct SOD were received for 4710 (98.22%) cases. Hundred percent times correct SOD was received for lesions including adenomatoid odontogenic tumor, keratinizing cystic odontogenic tumor, odontome, and dentigerous cyst. Lesions such as myoepithelial carcinoma, osteosarcoma, fibrosarcoma, and intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia received less percentage of correct SOD (85.71-75.75%). Correct SOD was obtained for variants of ameloblastoma (99.01%), grading of epithelial dysplasia (87.54%), and squamous cell carcinoma (95.26%). A positive correlation was observed between correct SOD and age (P = 0.0143) and experience (P = 0.0189) of the pathologist. The time taken for giving second opinion by the pathologists ranged from 81.98 ± 32.89 to 90.72 ± 38.88 min. Smartphone camera is a handy and efficient tool in capturing photomicrographs from the compound microscope. Transfer of such photomicrograph via WhatsApp is an effective and convenient approach in procuring second opinion on histopathological diagnosis of oral pathologies.

The value of second opinion in thyroid cytology: a review.

Second-opinion diagnosis (SOD) on pathological material is an accepted practice before definitive therapy is considered for referred patients. The thyroid gland is an anatomical site prone to diagnostic disagreement between pathologists. We performed a review of the literature that addressed the role of interinstitutional SOD on thyroid fine-needle aspirations (FNAs). Nine studies comprising second opinions on thyroid FNAs were selected. The parameters analyzed included: discordances between the initial diagnoses (IDs) and SODs; cytohistologic correlation; changes in the clinical management of the patients with thyroid nodules after SOD. The same parameters were applied to the "indeterminate" diagnostic category comprising cases initially reported as "atypia," "atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance," "suspicious for a follicular neoplasm," "follicular neoplasm," "suspicious," and "suspicious for malignancy." A total of 7154 thyroid FNAs were retrieved, showing an overall discordance rate between ID and SOD of 28.6%. In general, SOD was better supported by clinical follow-up and histological diagnosis, showing higher diagnostic accuracy in comparison with ID. Almost one-third (30.4%) of the discordant cases resulted in changes in the clinical management of patients with thyroid nodules. Numerous thyroid FNAs initially categorized as "indeterminate" were definitively classified as benign or malignant by SOD, with an overall diagnostic resolution rate of 42.5%, sensitivity of 97.9%, and diagnostic accuracy of 73.7%. Second-opinion review of thyroid FNA improves diagnostic accuracy and potentially changes clinical management. SOD also demonstrates a significative rate of diagnostic resolution for thyroid FNAs originally diagnosed as "indeterminate."

Barrett's Adenocarcinomas are Frequently Underdiagnosed as “High Grade Intraepithelial Neoplasia”

Relevant guidelines require that a primary histological diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIEN) in Barrett's oesophagus, be submitted to a second opinion by an expert gastroenterological pathologist. To date, however, no pertinent study of the outcome of such second-opinion diagnoses has been published. Between 2001 and 2005, histological slides from 275 patients with the primary diagnosis HGIEN underwent a second-opinion review. The resulting diagnoses were checked by follow-up in 207 of these patients (75.3%). The second-opinion diagnosis no IEN (n=27) was confirmed in 85.2% of the cases, 7.4% had LGIEN, 3.7% had HGIEN or a well-differentiated Barrett's adenocarcinoma (BCA) (1 patient, each). In the single patient with the second-opinion diagnosis LGIEN, endoscopic resection revealed a well-differentiated BCA, Follow-up examinations confirmed the second-opinion diagnosis BCA in 5 out of 12 patients, in 1 patient no IEN was found, and 6 patients had a BCA. The second-opinion diagnosis BCA was confirmed by follow-up-examinations in 145 patients (86.8%), in 12 patients (7.2%) follow-up revealed HGIEN and in 10 no neoplasia. The results of this study show that the demand for a second opinion from an expert gastroenterological pathologist is justified, and also that BCA is frequently underdiagnosed as HGIEN.

System of telesonography with synchronous teleconsultations and asynchronous telediagnoses (Togo)

Objectif. Concevoir un systeme de tele-expertise echographique, en temps reel et a bas prix, et de telediagnostic echographique en differe, entre un centre expert (CHU) et un site isole (hopitaux peripheriques et dispensaires). Materiels et methodes. Un systeme de communication via Internet transferant des videos echographiques et d’ambiance entre les deux sites permet une tele-expertise en temps reel, en presence d’un echographiste peu experimente sur le site isole. Si le site isole ne dispose pas d’echographiste, un operateur non initie realise une capture volumique par mouvements de tilt de ± 40 par rapport a la verticale avec une sonde echographique en deux dimensions (2D) en se servant d’une cartographie de localisation des fenetres acoustiques. Un programme de reconstruction tridimensionnelle (3D) original permet a l’expert de naviguer dans le volume d’image envoye par le centre isole pour un telediagnostic en differe. Resultats. Le systeme a ete teste entre le CHR Tsevie (Togo) et les CHU experts de Campus (Lome, Togo) et de Trousseau (Tours, France) avec une connexion Internet moyenne de 2 Mbps. Une tele-expertise en temps reel etait realisee a partir des videos echographiques de qualite tres satisfaisante acheminees avec un delai maximal de 1,5 s. Un telediagnostic echographique en differe etait aussi realise avec des resultats satisfaisants. Conclusion. Ce systeme de tele-echographie necessitant une infrastructure peu onereuse, et presentant des resultats preliminaires satisfaisants, constitue une methode de telemedecine, utilisable tant dans les pays developpes que dans les pays en developpement.

Expert second-opinion pathology review of lymphoma in the era of the World Health Organization classification

The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of hematologic malignancies, published in 2000, was designed to improve diagnostic accuracy by incorporating the latest in scientific understanding. The impact of the WHO classification on the frequency of diagnostic discrepancy in lymphoma is unknown. We reviewed all second-opinion pathology of lymphoma at our National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCC) from January to June 2001 and from January to June 2006. Discrepancies between submitted and second-opinion diagnoses were scored based upon an a priori grading schema. Major diagnostic revision was rendered in 65 of 365 cases (17.8%) in 2001 and 58 of 354 (16.4%) in 2006 (P=NS). Including cases reviewed and revised beforehand at another NCI-CCC, rates of major diagnostic revision were 21.4% and 18.6%, respectively (P=NS). Discrepancy rates varied by diagnosis, from Hodgkin lymphoma (10%) to Burkitt's lymphoma (75%). No association was seen for age, gender, race/ethnicity, biopsy type, or nature of referring center. Clinically meaningful diagnostic revision occurs frequently with expert pathology review for a diagnosis of lymphoma. Despite the WHO classification, rates of diagnostic revision at our institution in 2001 and 2006 did not differ significantly. Given the potential harm from misdiagnosis, expert hematopathology review should be considered the standard of care.

Second opinion in thyroid fine-needle aspiration biopsy by the Bethesda system

The present study was designed to determine the impact of secondary review of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy on surgical management. A retrospective review of patients referred to our institution with a thyroid FNA biopsy was conducted. Cytologic diagnoses from the report at our center and the referring institution were re-categorized by the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. The rate of diagnostic disagreement was evaluated between Primary Diagnosis (PD) and Second Opinion Diagnosis (SOD), and the clinicopathologic correlations and the number of cases that prompted changes in treatment as a result of diagnostic disagreement were analyzed. 1499 patients meeting our study criteria were enrolled in this study. Diagnostic disagreement comprised 394 cases (26.3%). In the case of diagnostic disagreement, SOD was supported on clinicopathologic follow-up in 271 cases (68.8%), of which a change in management was made in 54 (13.7%) cases, and PD was supported in 93 (23.6%) cases, of which a change in management was made in 13 (3.3%) cases. By the second opinion, 65 (4.5%) patients received proper management, and 14 (1.0%) patients received superfluous management. Wide use of secondary cytopathologic review of thyroid FNA specimens from referring institutions was recommended.

Patterns of second-opinion diagnosis in oral and maxillofacial pathology

Several studies have documented the beneficial effect of second opinions in diagnostic pathology. Among disease sites, the head and neck can be a particularly problematic area for pathologists, prompting frequent second opinions. However, the effect of second opinion requests made by physician pathologists (PPs) to oral and maxillofacial pathologists (OMPs) has not been well studied and might identify disease and subsites that pose diagnostic challenges. The objectives of this study were to study the referral patterns of PPs to a referral center for oral and maxillofacial pathology and to assess changes in diagnosis following second opinion. We retrospectively reviewed 142 consecutive pathology consultation requests over a 2-year period. The submitted report and matched second opinion report were reviewed to extract predetermined demographic, clinical, and pathologic data. Each diagnosis was reviewed to determine if there was agreement, minor disagreement, or major disagreement between the original and the second opinion. The most common diagnostic categories sent for second opinion were dysplasia/carcinoma, odontogenic cysts, and odontogenic tumors. In the 135 cases where agreement could be assessed, there were a total of 46 cases (34.1%) with differences in diagnostic opinion. Minor disagreements occurred in 24 cases (17.8%) and major disagreements in 22 cases (16.3%). Importantly, major disagreements identified here would have resulted in significant differences in patient evaluation and management. This study supports the positive impact of second-opinion surgical pathology for lesions in the maxillofacial complex and supports the role of OMPs in subspecialty diagnostic pathology.

Interinstitutional consultation in fine‐needle aspiration cytopathology

The importance of interinstitutional consultation (IC) has been documented across a variety of surgical pathology organ systems. However, to the authors' knowledge, few studies exist regarding this practice within cytopathology and specifically within fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). All FNAC cases between September 2002 and January 2007 were reviewed. Original diagnoses and second opinion diagnoses (SODs) were categorized as either no diagnostic disagreement, or minor diagnostic disagreement, or major diagnostic disagreement, and the latter was defined as either a 2-step deviation on a scale of "unsatisfactory, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant" or a change in treatment and/or prognosis. Outcome was determined by a review of the electronic medical record. Among 742 FNAC cases from outside laboratories, there were minor disagreements in 132 cases (17.8%) and major disagreements in 69 cases (9.3%) compared with the SODs from the authors' laboratory. Follow-up was available for 60 of 69 major discrepancies. The SOD was supported on follow-up in 65% of major discrepancies, and the initial diagnosis was supported better in 33% of major discrepancies. In 55% of cases in which the original institution diagnosis was supported better, either no case slides were received for examination or the slides contained material that was considered nondiagnostic by the authors. An SOD prompted a change in clinical management in 32 of 742 patients (4.3%). Aspirates that were most prone to change in management or therapy were from the thyroid (13 cases), neck (soft tissue and lymph nodes; 9 cases), salivary gland (2 cases), and liver (2 cases). Of 60 major diagnostic disagreements, board-certified cytopathologists rendered an SOD in 44 cases, and 75% of the diagnoses were supported better by follow-up, whereas pathologists who were not board certified in cytopathology had only 38% of SODs supported. Of 742 FNAC cases, 9.3% had major diagnostic disagreements; and, in 4.3%, patient management and therapy were altered. These results were similar to studies in surgical pathology emphasizing the importance of IC in FNAC. The authors concluded that FNAC IC benefits patient care.

The Importance of Reviewing Pathology Specimens Before Mohs Surgery

The review of outside biopsy slides before performing surgery is the standard of care in many surgical specialties. Previous studies have shown high discrepancy rates between the original and second-opinion diagnoses. The frequency with which this practice changes the diagnosis and management of patients undergoing Mohs surgery is undocumented in the literature. It is standard practice at our institution to review all outside biopsy slides before Mohs surgery. To investigate how often review of outside biopsies by an internal dermatopathologist changes patients' initial referral diagnosis and subsequent management. This is a retrospective review of all patients referred to Mohs surgery from January 2003 through March 2007. The number of cases in which the diagnosis changed and how this change affected management were recorded. Seventy-four of 3,345 (2.2%) cases were identified in which the diagnosis changed after review of the biopsy slides. Management was affected in the majority (61%) of cases. Board-certified dermatopathologists originally read nearly half of the biopsies. Review of outside biopsy slides before surgery can change the diagnosis in a large proportion of patients, with a resulting change in management. This quality-assurance practice may improve patient care.

Diagnostic accuracy of second-opinion diagnoses based on still images

Second opinion of histological specimens is an important part of the daily routine in anatomic pathology practices. Today, extramural second opinion can be easily obtained by sending still images via an electronic network. The aim of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of second opinion diagnosis based on still images selected from glass slides of 90 archived cases originally referred for extramural second opinion. Two pathologists together diagnosed first the still images (phase 1) and then the glass slides (phase 2). Phase 1 and phase 2 diagnoses were compared with the original second opinion diagnoses (OSODs). The pathologists achieved the same diagnostic results in phase 1 and in phase 2 measured against the OSOD, 67.8% (n = 61) and 68.9% (n = 62) complete agreement, respectively. In 29 cases in phase 1, the diagnoses were discordant with the OSOD. Three cases had incorrect benign diagnoses and 8 cases had incorrect malignant diagnoses. There were 8 false-negative diagnoses regarding malignancy, 6 false-positive diagnoses regarding malignancy, and 4 other discordant diagnoses. Eleven of the 29 discordant diagnoses could have had clinical implications. In interpreting these results, it is important to acknowledge the observer variability in diagnostic histopathology in general. In conclusion, the results support the concept of using still images to obtain second opinion diagnosis.