Consultative issues in surgical neuropathology: a retrospective review of the rationale for submitting cases for expert review.

Published

Journal Article

OBJECTIVES: Second opinions on neuropathology cases are sought for a variety of reasons. We investigated the rationales for seeking expert neuropathologic review. METHODS: A retrospective review was done of the correspondence accompanying neuropathology cases submitted over a 5-year period. The review used a taxonomy of referral reasons, the submitting diagnoses, and requests for ancillary tests. RESULTS: In total, 508 adult cases were submitted, including glioblastoma (n = 94), anaplastic astrocytoma (n = 49), low-grade glioma (n = 49), oligodendroglioma (n = 48), and pituitary adenoma (n = 12). Thirty-nine cases submitted requested ancillary testing. A taxonomy of four categories revealed the following: preliminary diagnosis (n = 228 cases) was the most common reason for requesting review, followed by no diagnosis rendered (n = 183 cases), second opinion (n = 53), and confirmation/quality assurance (n = 43); the remaining case was "other." Overall, 456 cases were submitted by pathologists, 40 by clinicians and 12 by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists who predominately submit cases with a preliminary diagnosis rendered seek expert consultation while clinicians seek a second opinion.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Lipp, ES; Clark, AC; McLendon, RE

Published Date

  • June 2015

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 143 / 6

Start / End Page

  • 807 - 811

PubMed ID

  • 25972322

Pubmed Central ID

  • 25972322

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1943-7722

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1309/AJCPWEP1HPX4EDCS

Language

  • eng

Conference Location

  • England