Clinical Impact and Frequency of Anatomic Pathology Errors in Cancer Diagnoses
|
|
- Kristian Harper
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 2205 Clinical Impact and Frequency of Anatomic Pathology Errors in Cancer Diagnoses Stephen S. Raab, M.D. 1 Dana Marie Grzybicki, M.D., Ph.D. 1 Janine E. Janosky, Ph.D. 2 Richard J. Zarbo, M.D., D.M.D. 3 Frederick A. Meier, M.D. 3 Chris Jensen, M.D. 4 Stanley J. Geyer, M.D. 5 1 Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2 Department of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3 Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 4 Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Healthcare, Iowa City, Iowa. 5 Department of Pathology, Western Pennsylvania Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. BACKGROUND. To the authors knowledge, the frequency and clinical impact of errors in the anatomic pathology diagnosis of cancer have been poorly characterized to date. METHODS. The authors examined errors in patients who underwent anatomic pathology tests to determine the presence or absence of cancer or precancerous lesions in four hospitals. They analyzed 1 year of retrospective errors detected through a standardized cytologic histologic correlation process (in which patient same-site cytologic and histologic specimens were compared). Medical record reviews were performed to determine patient outcomes. The authors also measured the institutional frequency, cause (i.e., pathologist interpretation or sampling), and clinical impact of diagnostic cancer errors. RESULTS. The frequency of errors in cancer diagnosis was found to be dependent on the institution (P 0.001) and ranged from % and from % of all correlated gynecologic and nongynecologic cases, respectively. A statistically significant association was found between institution and error cause (P 0.001); the cause of errors resulting from pathologic misinterpretation ranged from % (the remainder were due to clinical sampling). A statistically significant association was found between institution and assignment of the clinical impact of error (P 0.001); the aggregated data demonstrated that for gynecologic and nongynecologic errors, 45% and 39%, respectively, were associated with harm. The pairwise kappa statistic for interobserver agreement on cause of error ranged from CONCLUSIONS. Errors in cancer diagnosis are reported to occur in up to 11.8% of all reviewed cytologic-histologic specimen pairs. To the authors knowledge, little agreement exists regarding whether pathology errors are secondary to misinterpretation or poor clinical sampling of tissues and whether pathology errors result in serious harm. Cancer 2005;104: American Cancer Society. Supported by Grant HS from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Geyer s current address: Pathology Department, LDS Hospital, Intermountain Health Care, Salt Lake City, Utah. Address for reprints: Stephen S. Raab, M.D., Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 5150 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15232; Fax: (412) ; raabss@upmc.edu Received March 29, 2005; revision received June 14, 2005; accepted July 11, KEYWORDS: diagnostic error, pathology, patient safety, cancer, interobserver agreement. The diagnosis of many disease processes depends to a large extent on the pathologic assessment of tissues. The majority of cancer diagnoses are made on the basis of histologic or cytologic evaluation. Consequently, diagnostic pathology errors may lead to incorrect patient management plans, including delays in treatment or the implementation of incorrect treatment regimens. 1,2 The reported frequency of anatomic pathologic errors ranges from 1 43% of all specimens, and the effect of these errors is unknown Diagnostic pathology error frequency and effect are poorly characterized, partly because of the lack of uniform measurement processes, a lack of understanding of when an error has occurred, and fear of disclosure. Anatomic pathology errors are detected by several methods. 2 The most commonly used method is secondary review, in which a second 2005 American Cancer Society DOI /cncr Published online 10 October 2005 in Wiley InterScience (
2 2206 CANCER November 15, 2005 / Volume 104 / Number 10 TABLE 1 Pre-study Methods of Cytologic Histologic Correlation Error Case Detection and Review Site Method of case retrieval Time interval used for search A Computer search for all correlating surgical and cytology specimens followed by manual review for those anatomically correlating 6-mo wide search using previous month s surgical pathology specimens to search for cytology cases. Search performed monthly. B Same 4-mo wide search. Reviewed periodically as convenient C Same 12-mo search. Cases reviewed bimonthly D Previous cytology case for review Reviewed daily identified only when triggered by positive surgical specimen Determination method for case review Two-step discrepancy Any disagreement Two-step disagreement Any disagreement Prescreening performed by cytotechnologist Reviewer Arbitration method No Designated group of three pathologists Yes One pathologist None Yes Two pathologists None No Pathologist signing out surgical case Cases shown to original patholo for input. Final decision based on reviewer Case shown to original cytolog if disagreement pathologist reviews slides previously examined by a first pathologist. 5 Pathologists employ different types of secondary review. For example, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA 88) require correlation of patient material in which samesite cytologic and surgical specimens are obtained (e.g., sputum cytology and lung biopsy specimens) and the two pathologic diagnoses are discrepant (e.g., sputum is suspicious for cancer and the lung biopsy tissue is benign). 15 Nearly all correlations are performed to detect potential errors in cancer diagnosis. Errors detected through correlation review may be classified as interpretive (i.e., the disease process is misclassified) or sampling (i.e., the specimen does not contain the diagnostic tissue). 1 In general, interpretive errors are related to errors made in the pathology laboratory, whereas sampling errors are made either in the pathology laboratory (in tissue processing) or during tissue procurement. 5 To our knowledge, a detailed study of the effect of errors in cancer diagnosis, such as those detected by cytologic-histologic (CH) correlation, is lacking. Based on CH review of nongynecologic cases performed at a single institution, Clary et al. reported that 2.3% of cytologic specimens and 0.44% of surgical specimens contained an error and 23% of errors had a marked effect on patient care. 1 The current study examines the frequency and cause of anatomic pathology error at four institutions, the interinstitutional variability in assigning the cause of correlation error, and the clinical impact of anatomic pathology error on patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS Background and Design In 2002, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) funded four institutions to: 1) share deidentified anatomic pathology diagnostic error data using a Web-based database, 2) determine baseline error frequencies detected by different methods, 3) collect patient outcome information to determine the clinical impact of diagnostic errors, 4) perform root cause analysis to derive error reduction strategies, and 5) assess the success of these error reduction strategies using both quantitative and qualitative measures. 5 We have added a different error detection method in each year of the project. In 2002, we began collecting errors detected by the CH correlation process. In this study, we used the Year 2002 data to establish CH correlation error frequencies, causes, and outcomes. Each institution obtained al Review Board approval for the performance of this project. Participating Sites The four institutions are geographically located either in the mid-atlantic region or the Midwestern region of the U.S. Standardization of CH Correlation Review Process Because CLIA 88 does not mandate how the CH process is to be performed, laboratories perform CH quite differently (Table 1), which leads to bias in error reporting. 5 In the beginning of the project, we first standardized the CH correlation process in the four institutions. On a monthly basis, a cytotechnologist used an existing laboratory information system program to identify all patients who had both cytology and surgical specimens from the same anatomic site that had been obtained within 6 months of each other prior to the date of review. A designated review pathologist selected cases in which the cytologic and surgical specimens were discrepant. The cytotechnologist then retrieved the patient slides and reports and generated
3 Pathology Errors in Cancer Diagnosis/Raab et al TABLE 2 Diagnostic Steps for Gynecologic and Nongynecologic Specimens Gynecologic specimens Non-gynecologic specimens Step Cytology diagnosis Surgical diagnosis Cytology diagnosis Surgical diagnosis 0 No evidence of intraepithelial lesion or Benign Benign Benign malignancy (NIL) 1 Atypical squamous cells of undetermined No equivalent Atypical significance (ASC-US) 2 Low-grade squamous intraepithelial Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of Suspicious lesion (LSIL) type 1 (CIN1) 3 High-grade squamous intraepithelial Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of Malignant Malignant lesion (HSIL) type 2 or 3 (CIN 2 or CIN 3) 4 Invasive carcinoma Invasive carcinoma a hardcopy review sheet. The review pathologist examined the material and determined the cause of error. Definition of CH Error and Cause We defined a discrepancy as a difference between the cytologic and histologic diagnoses. 5 Because cytology and surgical diagnostic schema are somewhat different, we considered the diagnoses in a scaled categoric context to determine whether a discrepancy occurred. The categoric context was different if the specimens were gynecologic (e.g., Papanicolaou [Pap] test and cervical biopsy) or nongynecologic (e.g., lung brushing and biopsy) (Table 2). We defined a CH correlation error as at least a two-step discrepancy. 5 We evaluated only two-step or greater CH correlation discrepancies because of the lack of reproducibility and the clinical import of one-step discrepancies. 1,16,17 For example, a diagnostic error occurred if a patient s bronchial brush specimen was diagnosed as benign and the patient s lung biopsy specimen was diagnosed as nonsmall cell carcinoma. This example falls within the scope of the Institute of Medicine s definition of error because in at least one specimen, the definitive pathologic diagnosis was not reached. 18 The review pathologist microscopically examined all slides and determined if the cytology, surgical, both diagnoses, or neither diagnosis was in error. The pathologist then assigned a cause of the error, using the categories of interpretation, sampling, or both. 1 An interpretation error was an error in disease categorization, and this error was classified further as an overcall (if the review diagnosis was categorically lower than the original diagnosis) or an undercall (if the review diagnosis was higher than the original diagnosis). A sampling error was an error in which the diagnostic material was not present on the slide, even on review. Using the above example, if the review pathologist concurred with both the original lung biopsy and brushing diagnoses, a sampling error occurred in the brushing specimen, because material diagnostic of cancer was not present on the cytology slides. CH Correlation Data Collection We developed a two-part CH correlation data collection instrument. The first part contained pathology items, including the date of cytology and surgical specimen collection, specimen type, original and review diagnoses, original and review pathologists and cytotechnologists, limitations in specimen quality, and causes of error. The second part contained patient management and outcomes items, including additional tests ordered, unnecessary or additional treatment protocols initiated, morbidity or mortality related to additional tests or treatments, and delays in diagnosis. We performed a clinical record review on all nongynecologic errors, all gynecologic errors that had either original or review diagnoses of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of type 2 or greater, and a random sample of 10% of all gynecologic errors that had either original or review diagnoses of less than HSIL/CIN 2. 5 A 10% review was performed on this subset because of the lower likelihood of adverse outcomes. A data collector reviewed the pathology CH correlation logs and pathology reports to complete the first part of the instrument. An honest broker reviewed the hospital electronic and hardcopy medical records to complete the second part of the instrument. An honest broker was a clinical outcomes data collector who was the only person exposed to clinical data linked to individual patient identifiers. Use of the honest broker satisfied the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements regarding the use of medical records data for research pur-
4 2208 CANCER November 15, 2005 / Volume 104 / Number 10 TABLE 3 Categories of Error Clinical Severity No harm: The clinician acted regardless of an erroneous diagnosis. Example: A patient had a lung mass and the clinician performed a bronchial washing and biopsy at the same time. The washing was diagnosed as malignant and the biopsy was diagnosed as benign (sampling error). The clinician acted on the malignant cytology diagnosis regardless of the surgical diagnosis. Near miss: The clinician intervened before harm occurred or the clinician did not act on an erroneous diagnosis. Example: A patient had a lung mass and a bronchoalveolar lavage was obtained and diagnosed as benign (sampling error). The surgeon proceeded with a therapeutic surgical procedure because the radiological evidence supported the diagnosis of malignancy. The diagnosis on the surgical specimen was malignant. Significant event: Minimal harm (Grade 1): a. Further unnecessary noninvasive diagnostic test(s) performed (e.g., blood test or non-invasive radiologic examination). b. Delay in diagnosis or therapy of 6 mos. c. Minor morbidity due to (otherwise) unnecessary further diagnostic effort(s) or therapy (e.g., bronchoscopy) predicated on the presence of (unjustified) diagnosis. Moderate harm (Grade 2): a. Unnecessary invasive further diagnostic test(s) (e.g., tissue biopsy, re-excision, angiogram, radionuclide study, or colonoscopy). b. Delay in diagnosis or therapy of 6 mos. c. Major morbidity lasting 6 mos due to (otherwise) unnecessary further diagnostic efforts or therapy predicted on the presence of (unjustified) diagnosis. Severe harm (Grade 3): Loss of life, limb, or other body part, or long-lasting morbidity (lasting 6 mos). two ways, using different denominators. First, we used the total number of discrepant and nondiscrepant correlating cytology and surgical specimen pairs a denominator. 1 This measure expressed error frequency in terms of the total number of cases secondarily reviewed. The percentage of correlated cases in relation to the total cytology and surgical workload varied considerably by institution. Second, we used the total number of institutional cytology cases as a denominator. This measure expressed error frequency in terms of total laboratory case workload, recognizing that the majority of cases were not reviewed. We retrieved denominator data from the institutional laboratory information systems using query tools for the number of correlating cytology and surgical pairs and overall 2002 cytology workload. Aggregated error frequencies for the entire 2002 dataset were calculated using weighted means. We examined institutional differences in overall error frequencies, error frequencies by specimen type, cause of error (i.e., sampling or interpretation), and assessment of error severity using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Statistical significance was assumed with a P value All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (Version 11; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). poses. The data then were deidentified by the honest broker, and a pathologist assessed the clinical severity of the error, using the categories shown in Table 3. We devised this scheme based on error severity schema published in the medical literature, recognizing that error severity instruments have not been specifically designed for diagnostic pathology errors. The data collector entered the deidentified case data into the Web-based patient safety database. Data Analysis We analyzed the Year 2002 CH correlation errors by stratifying the errors by institution, specimen type (gynecologic vs. nongynecologic), nongynecologic specimen anatomic site, cause of error, clinical management protocol, outcome, and clinical severity. A priori sample size calculations, assuming an error frequency difference of at least 2% (the smallest difference in an error frequency that we deemed clinically significant), a nondirectional alpha of 0.05, and a power of 0.80, showed that we needed a denominator of 1398 cases per institution to detect statistical significance. Overall error frequencies were calculated for each institution using the number of CH correlation errors as a numerator. Error frequencies were calculated in Pathologist Agreement on the Cause of CH Correlation Error A confounding factor in the comparison of CH correlation errors is the interobserver variability of the review pathologists assessment of error cause. To our knowledge, no previous studies have measured the level of pathologist agreement with regard to CH correlation error cause. We selected a sample of 10 CH correlation errors (5 gynecologic errors with conventional Pap tests and 5 nongynecologic pulmonary errors with either bronchial brushes or bronchial washes) from each institution for review. Slides from all 40 cases were deidentified and assessed independently by the CH correlation review pathologists. Each pathologist examined the slides, recorded cytology and surgical diagnoses, and determined the cause of error. Estimates of agreement between reviewers were calculated using an unweighted kappa statistic. The agreement between the review pathologists assignment and the original assignment at the institution and the agreement between the review pathologists current assignments were measured. Pathologists rereviewed their own institutional cases, and the kappa statistic was used as an intraobserver measure of agreement.
5 Pathology Errors in Cancer Diagnosis/Raab et al TABLE 4 al and Aggregated CH Correlation Errors in Cancer Diagnoses No. of gynecologic errors No. of correlating cases Error frequency using denominator of correlating cases Total cytology workload Error frequency using denominator of workload A , B , C , D , Aggregated No. of non-gynecologic errors No. of correlating cases Error frequency using denominator of correlating cases Total cytology workload Error frequency using denominator of workload A , B 100 1, , C 477 4, , D , Aggregated CH: cytologic-histologic. RESULTS al CH correlation error frequencies for the Year 2002 are shown in Table 4. Error frequencies for nongynecologic specimens were higher than for gynecologic specimens. For some institutions, more than 1 of every 10 patients who had a correlating CH specimen pair had an error in diagnosis. Contingency tables showed that gynecologic and nongynecologic error frequencies, regardless of the denominator used, were dependent on institution (P 0.001). Compared with the other three institutions, the gynecologic error frequencies of A were higher (P 0.001). Compared with C, the gynecologic and nongynecologic error frequencies of B were lower (P 0.001). Table 5 shows the number of institutional nongynecologic errors by anatomic site. All the institutions showed a relatively high number of nongynecologic errors associated with specimens obtained from the urinary tract and lung. A variable number of errors were detected for some specimen sites. For example, C reported that 19% of correlating specimens from the pleura were associated with an error, and s B and D reported no errors in pleural specimens. The institutional causes of error are shown in Table 6. Contingency tables showed a statistically significant association between institution and error cause for both gynecologic and nongynecologic errors (P 0.001). s A and B reported significantly fewer interpretation errors and C reported significantly more interpretation errors than expected. TABLE 5 Distribution of al Non-gynecologic Errors by Anatomic Site Anatomic site No. of errors (error percentage by total no. of correlating discrepant and non-discrepant cases specimens for s A and C) by institution A B C D Biliary tract 0 (0) 6 7 (9) 0 Bone/soft tissue 0 (0) 0 4 (8) 1 Brain 0 (0) 0 2 (4) 0 Breast 3 (15) 3 44 (13) 0 GI tract 1 (4) 2 6 (6) 0 Urinary tract 17 (11) (25) 3 Liver 0 (0) 0 7 (16) 1 Lung 48 (17) (6) 12 Lymph node 1 (5) 3 22 (16) 3 Pelvis 0 (0) 1 51 (13) 0 Peritoneum 0 (0) 3 78 (16) 1 Pleura 4 (13) 0 34 (19) 0 Thyroid 0 (0) 1 26 (11) 2 Other a Item missing Total GI: gastrointestinal. a Includes ovary, pancreas, salivary glands, and pericardium. For s A and C, the percentage of errors is expressed as the number of errors from that anatomic site divided by the total number of discrepant and non-discrepant cytology-histology correlating pairs from that anatomic site examined during s B and D were unable to obtain case-load values stratified by the non-gynecologic cytology anatomic site. The majority of errors were attributed to cytology, rather than surgical, sampling or interpretation; D never attributed an error to surgical specimen interpretation or sampling.
6 2210 CANCER November 15, 2005 / Volume 104 / Number 10 TABLE 6 Distribution of al Errors by Cause for Error Specimen type Cause error A No. B No. C No. D No. Aggregated Gynecologic Interpretation Cytology 4 (3) 7 (7) 195 (45) 3 (17) 40 Surgical 3 (2) 2 (2) 23 (5) 0 (0) Sampling Cytology 110 (79) 37 (36) 114 (27) 15 (83) 60 Surgical 23 (17) 61 (59) 126 (29) 0 (0) Non-gynecologic Interpretation Cytology 3 (4) 16 (16) 163 (34) 2 (9) 29 Surgical 1 (1) 0 37 (8) 0 (0) Sampling Cytology 60 (81) 76 (76) 321 (67) 21 (91) 71 Surgical 13 (18) 4 (4) 36 (8) 0 The reason that the institutional percentages for cause of error do not add up to 100% is that some institutions assigned more than 1 cause of error per case. The aggregate frequencies for error cause were calculated after forcing each case into only one cause category. Aggregated data were not calculated separately for cytology and surgical causes of error because of the low numbers in some categories. TABLE 7 Major Clinical Outcomes and Severity of Gynecologic Errors Percentage by institution TABLE 8 Major Clinical Outcomes and Severity of Non-gynecologic Errors Percentage by institution Outcome A B C D Outcome A B C D Patient lost to follow-up Repeat Pap test Colposcopy with additional sampling Hysterectomy Ancillary therapy for cancer Other Not answered Clinical severity assessment A B C D No harm Near miss Harm, Grade Harm, Grade Harm, Grade Not answered Pap: Papanicolaou. The major clinical outcomes and error severity for gynecologic and nongynecologic errors are shown in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. Contingency tables showed that for both gynecologic and nongynecologic errors, a statistically significant association existed between institution and the assignment of clinical error severity (P 0.001). For both gynecologic and nongynecologic errors, A reported significantly more no-harm events and fewer harm events, B reported significantly fewer no-harm events and more harm events, and D reported significantly fewer harm events than expected (P Patient lost to follow-up No specific follow-up documented Routine monitoring for malignancy Additional cytology specimen obtained Additional surgical specimen obtained Ancillary cancer therapy Antibiotics or other non-chemotherapy medications Other Not answered Clinical severity assessment A B C D No harm Near miss Harm, Grade Harm, Grade Harm, Grade Not answered ). For nongynecologic cases alone, C reported significantly fewer no-harm events (P 0.001). D reported that errors in cancer diagnosis never resulted in patient harm. For the aggregated data, the frequency of error severity assignment for gynecologic errors was 46% for no-harm events, 8% for near-miss events, and 45% for harm events. The frequency of error severity assignment for nongynecologic errors was 55% for no-harm events, 5% for near-miss events, and 39% for harm events. If harm occurred, it generally was assessed as Grade 1 or 2. Interobserver (40 cases) and intraobserver (10
7 Pathology Errors in Cancer Diagnosis/Raab et al TABLE 9 Agreement between Originally Assigned Cause of Error (Interpretation vs. Sampling) and Reasons Assigned at Review Review reason for error TABLE 10 Agreement between Causes of Error (Interpretation vs. Sampling) for Each al Slide Set (10 Slides per Set) Slide set A A B C D B C D Original reason for error A B C D CNBD a CNBD a CNBD a CNBD a CNBD: could not be determined. a Pair-wise kappa statistics could not be determined when one of the observer pair used only one reason category for all cases reviewed (i.e., D originally assigned the cause of error in all cases as sampling). cases) agreement concerning the review causes of error with the original assessment is shown in Table 9. B exhibited worse agreement when reviewing their own cases compared with when reviewing cases from s A and D. Pairwise agreement between the review pathologists is shown in Table 10 and was found to demonstrate high variability. A B C Slide set B B C D A B C Slide set C B C D A B C Slide set D B C D A CNBD a CNBD a B CNBD a CNBD a C CNBD a CNBD: could not be determined. a Pair-wise kappa statistics could not be determined when one of the observer pair used only one reason category for all cases reviewed (i.e., D originally assigned the cause of error in all cases as sampling). DISCUSSION It is exceedingly difficult to measure the true frequency of errors in cancer diagnosis because of the variety of detection methods used, bias, and the inability of institutions to secondarily review large case volumes. 5 As part of a multiinstitutional, national effort to improve practice, we are in the process of standardizing methods, decreasing bias by sharing cases and data among institutions, and establishing more accurate error frequencies by detecting errors using multiple methods. 5 In the current study, we reported cancer diagnostic error frequencies based on the CH correlation method, with the understanding that these are minimum frequencies because the majority of patient specimens are not reviewed. Assuming that our aggregated error frequencies are representative of all American laboratories, the minimum number of patients per year who have a Pap test/gynecologic histologic diagnostic error is 150,000 (assuming 50 million annual Pap tests), and that for patients who have a nongynecologic diagnostic error (assuming 5 million nongynecologic specimens) is 155, If the frequency of error were based on the denominator of correlating CH case pairs, these numbers would be 2 10 times higher. The effect of diagnostic cancer errors on patient outcome is largely unknown. 5 Clinicians often do not know when a diagnostic error has occurred and pathologists often have no knowledge of the effect. The study of errors in cancer diagnosis has been limited by the lack of taxonomy to classify error severity. We devised an error severity scale based on several factors such as morbidity, mortality, delay in diagnosis, and additional testing performed. Similar to other classification systems, we found that pathologists disagreed on the extent of harm caused by diagnostic errors. 21,29 Some institutions claimed that harm never occurred after an error in cancer diagnosis. Using aggregated clinical severity data and the number of errors calculated above, harm appears to occur in a minimum of 127,950 patients per year in the U.S. as a result of errors in the diagnosis of cancer in gynecologic and nongynecologic specimens. Individual institutional error frequencies differed partly because of variable clinical and laboratory practices and partly because of biases that were difficult to control. Standardization of laboratory practices is
8 2212 CANCER November 15, 2005 / Volume 104 / Number 10 haphazard. For example, our participant laboratories differed with regard to pathologist experience, subspecialty sign-out practice, training programs, methods of preparing specimens, and presign-out quality assurance methods, all of which potentially affected error frequency. We currently are measuring these processes to identify those that may be key to better outcomes. Several authors have reported regional variations in several medical practices such as organspecific surgery and other treatment protocols We believe that differences in test ordering practices contribute to clinical sampling error frequencies. For example, clinicians who bypass noninvasive cytologic diagnostic techniques for more invasive surgical techniques may have a higher rate of more accurate cancer diagnoses, but with associated higher costs, morbidity, and mortality. The results of the current study demonstrate how false-positive and false-negative cancer diagnoses affect patient outcome. In the pathology literature, false-positive diagnoses usually are attributed to interpretation failures that may be avoided if pathologists learn potential pitfalls. The pathology culture is one of individual diagnostic responsibility and errors are not attributed to poorly designed systems that may be fixed. 36 False-negative diagnoses often are attributed to inherent limitations in testing, with the solution being the adoption of better tests. For example, metaanalyses have demonstrated that the mean sensitivity of the conventional Pap test is 58%, 37,38 and the growth of some new Pap test technologies is aimed at improving sensitivity. Our goal is to use error data to maximize the sensitivity and specificity of tests for cancer diagnosis based on tissue sampling. For pathology laboratories, this entails reducing diagnostic variability and designing systems that decrease the probabilities of false-positive and false-negative results. For clinical systems, this means improving test sampling. Variability in cancer diagnosis has been shown to exist for nearly every cancer type, although to our knowledge successful interventions at decreasing variability are rare. Page et al. showed that variability in the diagnosis of breast cancer was reduced after education and the adoption of standard histologic criteria. 27,39,40 However, experts often do not agree on the standard criteria, and without a mechanism to force agreement and adherence, decreasing diagnostic variability is difficult. The diagnostic variability measured in the current study is an expression of institutional diagnostic differences related to all organ systems. We are attempting to use standardized criteria within and across laboratories and other processes, such as telepathology, to standardize diagnoses in CH correlation. Clearly, this is a first small step in decreasing national interobserver diagnostic variability, and the entire pathology community will need to play a role in this effort. The standardization and uniform reporting of errors in cancer diagnosis is a first step in improving safety. Additional sites have been recruited to contribute error data to further nationalize this effort. In the second phase of this project, root cause analysis was used to devise error reduction plans that were implemented in all laboratories. Reports of the success and failure of these plans are forthcoming. REFERENCES 1. Clary JM, Silverman JF, Liu Y, et al. Cytohistologic discrepancies: a means to improve pathology practice and patient outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117: Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129: Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, Langford LA. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997;79: Furness PN, Lauder I. A questionnaire-based survey of errors in diagnostic histopathology throughout the United Kingdom. J Clin Pathol. 1997;50: Raab SS. Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24: Whitehead ME, Fitzwater JF, Lindley SK, Kern SB, Ulirsch RC, Winecoff WF 3rd. Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses: a prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984;81: Zardawi IM, Bennett G, Jain S, Brown M. Internal quality assurance activities of a surgical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51: Zuk JA, Kenyon WE, Myskow MW. Audit in histopathology: description of an internal quality assessment scheme with analysis of preliminary results. J Clin Pathol. 1991;44: Wakely SL, Baxendine-Jones JA, Gallagher PJ, Mullee M, Pickering R. Aberrant diagnoses by individual surgical pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22: Safrin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology signout. Routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17: Renshaw AA. Measuring and reporting errors in surgical pathology. Lessons from gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115: Ramsay AD, Gallagher PJ. Local audit of surgical pathology. 18 month s experience of peer-review-based quality assurance in an English teaching hospital. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16: Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: Zarbo RJ, Hoffman GG, Howanitz PJ. Interinstitutional comparison of frozen section consultation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 79,647 consultations in 297 North American institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991; 115:
9 Pathology Errors in Cancer Diagnosis/Raab et al Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration. Clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988: final rule. Federal Register 57, no (1992) (codified at 42 CFR 493). 16. Jones BA, Novis DA. Follow-up of abnormal gynecologic cytology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 16,132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124: Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology. Experience with 1,582 paired cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103: Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Battles JB, Kaplan HS, Van der Schaaf TW, Shea CE. The attributes of medical event reporting systems: experience with a prototype medical event reporting system for transfusion medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122: Dovey SM, Meyers, DS, Phillips RL Jr., et al. A preliminary taxonomy of medical errors in family practice. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11: Rubin G, George A, Chinn DJ, Richardson C. Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12: Fernald DH, Pace WD, Harris DM, West DR, Main DS, Westfall JM. Event reporting to a primary care patient safety reporting system: a report from the ASIPS collaborative. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2: O Sullivan JP. Observer variation in gynaecological cytopathology. Cytopathology. 1998;9: Llewellyn H. Observer variation, dysplasia grading, and HPV typing: a review. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114:S21 S Schlemper RJ, Kato Y, Stolte M. Review of histological classifications of gastrointestinal epithelia neoplasia: differences in diagnosis of early carcinomas between Japanese and Western pathologists. Gastroenterology 2001;36: Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology. 1998;51: Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer. 1994;73: Pap Test. Primary Care Consultants. Available at URL: [accessed February 3, 2005]. 29. Mason DJ. Who says it s an error? Research highlights a disagreement among health care workers. Am J Nurs. 2004; 104: Birkmeyer JD, Sharp SM, Finlayson SR, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Variation profiles of common surgical procedures. Surgery. 1998;124: Garg PP, Landrum MB, Normand SL, et al. Understanding individual and small area variation in the underuse of coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction. Med Care. 2002;40: Carlisle DM, Valdez RB, Shapiro MF, Brook RH. Geographic variation in rates of selected surgical procedures within Los Angeles County. Health Serv Res. 1995;30: Wrobel JS, Mayfield JA, Reiber GE. Geographic variation of lower-extremity major amputation in individuals with and without diabetes in the Medicare population. Diabetes Care. 2001;24: McPherson K, Wennberg JE, Hovind OB, Clifford P. Smallarea variations in the use of common surgical procedures: an international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982;307: Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Health care quality, geographic variations, and the challenge of supply-sensitive care. Perspect Biol Med. 2003;46: Banja JD. Medical errors and medical narcissism. Boston: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143: Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132: Page DL, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Simpson JF. When and to what end do pathologists agree? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90: Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol :
Use of a New Method in Reaching Consensus on the Cause of Cytologic-Histologic Correlation Discrepancy
Anatomic Pathology / CONSENSUS ON DISCREPANCY CAUSES Use of a New Method in Reaching Consensus on the Cause of Cytologic-Histologic Correlation Discrepancy Stephen S. Raab, MD, 1 Chad H. Stone, MD, 2 Eva
More informationCytohistologic Discrepancies A Means to Improve Pathology Practice and Patient Outcomes
Anatomic Pathology / CYTOHISTOLOGIC DISCREPANCIES Cytohistologic Discrepancies A Means to Improve Pathology Practice and Patient Outcomes Karen M. Clary, MD, Jan F. Silverman, MD, Yulin Liu, MD, PhD, Charles
More informationThe 1999 Institute of Medicine report increased the national
CAP Laboratory Improvement Programs Patient Safety in Anatomic Pathology Measuring Discrepancy Frequencies and Causes Stephen S. Raab, MD; Raouf E. Nakhleh, MD; Stephen G. Ruby, MD Context. Anatomic pathology
More informationMandatory Second Opinion in Cytopathology
Contemporary Issue Mandatory Second Opinion in Cytopathology Nathan Lueck, MD, Chris Jensen, MD, Michael B. Cohen, MD 1, and Jamie A. Weydert, MD BACKGROUND: Mandatory review of outside pathologic material
More informationIn 1999, the Institute of Medicine reported on the scope
Anatomic Pathology Databases and Patient Safety Stephen S. Raab, MD; Dana M. Grzybicki, MD, PhD; Richard J. Zarbo, MD, DMD; Frederick A. Meier, MDCM; Stanley J. Geyer, MD; Chris Jensen, MD Context. The
More informationCAP Companion Meeting at USCAP Quality and Patient Safety in Anatomic Pathology: Practical Solutions. Surgical Pathology
CAP Companion Meeting at USCAP 2010 Quality and Patient Safety in Anatomic Pathology: Practical Solutions Directed Peer Review in Surgical Pathology Stephen S. Raab, MD University of Colorado Denver 2010
More informationGoals and Objectives for Cytopathology Rotation
Goals and Objectives for Cytopathology Rotation Level: PGY3, PGY4, PGY5 The 1st block in PGY3 is an introductory in nature and is followed by three more blocks in PGY-4 (please, see core rotation for PGY4
More informationInterpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology
Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology Guideline from the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors
More informationGynecologic Cytology-Histology Correlation Guideline
Gynecologic Cytology- Correlation Guideline George G. Birdsong, MD and Joe W. Walker, Jr., MS, SCT(ASCP) CM Clinical Practice Committee Dr. Birdsong and Mr. Walker are grateful for extensive input from
More informationGOALS AND OBJECTIVES CYTOPATHOLOGY
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES CYTOPATHOLOGY LEVEL: PGY2, PGY4, PGY5 The 1st block in PGY2 is an introductory in nature and is followed by two more blocks in PGY-4 (please, see core rotation for PGY4 below) and
More informationApplying Risk Management Principles to QA in Surgical Pathology: From Principles to Practice
Applying Risk Management Principles to QA in Surgical Pathology: From Principles to Practice Dr. Gregory Flynn CEO, Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare Managing Director, Quality Management
More informationCytology Report Format
Squamous Precursor Lesions and Malignancies In Pap Test Dina R. Mody, MD, FCAP Director of Cytology The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Weill Medical College
More information4. Monitoring of PAP test with Cervical Biopsy Correlations
Page 1 of 6 1. For cases of an HSIL Pap test with a discordant biopsy report where only the biopsy report is available, what action do you take? (check all that apply) Paper correlation without review
More informationBecause of its complex nature, anatomic pathology is
Error Detection in Anatomic Pathology Richard J. Zarbo, MD, DMD; Frederick A. Meier, MDCM; Stephen S. Raab, MD Objectives. To define the magnitude of error occurring in anatomic pathology, to propose a
More informationEuropean Union survey on organization and quality control of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination programs
European Union survey on organization and quality control of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination programs Introduction to the Survey The purpose of this project is to collect information regarding
More informationCervical Precancer: Evaluation and Management
TAJ June 2002; Volume 15 Number 1 ISSN 1019-8555 The Journal of Teachers Association RMC, Rajshahi Review fam Cervical Precancer: Evaluation and Management SM Khodeza Nahar Begum 1 Abstract Carcinoma of
More informationOver-diagnoses in Cytopathology: Is histology the gold standard?
Over-diagnoses in Cytopathology: Is histology the gold standard? Teresa M. Darragh, MD UCSF Departments of Pathology and Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences Faculty Disclosures: Teresa M. Darragh,
More informationCervical Screening for Dysplasia and Cancer in Patients with HIV
Cervical Screening for Dysplasia and Cancer in Patients with HIV Adult Clinical Guideline from the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute w w w.hivg uidelines.org Purpose of the Guideline Increase
More information117 Applying Risk Management Principles to QA in Surgical Pathology: From Principles to Practice. Gregory Flynn MD
117 Applying Risk Management Principles to QA in Surgical Pathology: From Principles to Practice Gregory Flynn MD 2011 Annual Meeting Las Vegas, NV AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL PATHOLOGY 33 W. Monroe,
More informationCytology/Biopsy/Leep Gynecologic Correlation: Practical Considerations and Approaches.
Cytology/Biopsy/Leep Gynecologic Correlation: Practical Considerations and Approaches. Fadi W. Abdul-Karim MD MEd. Professor of Pathology. Vice chair for education. Robert Tomsich Pathology and Lab Med
More informationLessons From Cases of Screened Women Who Developed Cervical Carcinoma
Lessons From Cases of Screened Women Who Developed Cervical Carcinoma R. Marshall Austin MD,PhD Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center raustin@magee.edu Why Focus Study On Cases
More informationQuantitative Optical Spectroscopy of the Uterine Cervix: A cost effective way to detect and manage cervical disease
Quantitative Optical Spectroscopy of the Uterine Cervix: A cost effective way to detect and manage cervical disease Nahida Chakhtoura, MD, Leo Twiggs, MD, Timothy DeSantis, MD Claudia Werner, MD, William
More informationNegative Colposcopic Biopsy After Positive Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) DNA Testing False-Positive HPV Results or False-Negative Histologic Findings?
Anatomic Pathology / FALSE-NEGATIVE HISTOLOGIC FINDINGS Negative Colposcopic Biopsy After Positive Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) DNA Testing False-Positive HPV Results or False-Negative Histologic Findings?
More informationIbrahim M Zardawi, Genevieve Bennett, Sanjiv Jain, Michael Brown
J Clin Pathol 1998;51:695 699 695 Department of Pathology, Royal Darwin Hospital, Casuarina, Australia I M Zardawi G Bennett S Jain M Brown Correspondence to: Dr I M Zardawi, Associate Professor, Department
More informationDepartment of Pathology, Kathmandu Medical College & Teaching Hospital, Sinamangal, Kathmandu, Nepal
Kathmandu University Medical Journal (2007), Vol. 5, No. 4, Issue 20, 461-467 Original Article Correlation of PAP smear findings with clinical findings and cervical biopsy Pradhan B 1, Pradhan SB 2, Mital
More informationI have no financial interests in any product I will discuss today.
Cervical Cancer Screening Update and Implications for Annual Exams George F. Sawaya, MD Professor Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
More informationdifficult and may not be practical. Nevertheless, the performance characteristics of rapid screening have not been completely characterized.
Anatomic Pathology / PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF RAPID PRESCREENING Performance Characteristics of Rapid (0-Second) Prescreening Implications for Calculating the False-Negative Rate and Comparison With
More informationQuality, Patient Safety and Error Reduction in Cytopathology
CAP Companion Society Meeting at USCAP 2009 Quality Assurance, Error Reduction, and Patient Safety in Anatomic Pathology Quality, Patient Safety and Error Reduction in Cytopathology Jan F. Silverman, MD,
More informationQuality Indicators - Anatomic Pathology- HSC/STC Jul-Sep 2 nd Qtr. Apr-Jun 1 st Qtr
Eastern Health Volume 86 Page 001 CIHRT Exhibit P-3595 Page 1 INDICATOR Financial Overtime Hours / FTE Workload Increase - FTE equivalent Workload Quality Indicators - Anatomic Pathology- HSC/STC TOTAL
More informationRitu Nayar, MD Professor and Vice Chair of Pathology Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago, IL
Ritu Nayar, MD Professor and Vice Chair of Pathology Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago, IL email: r-nayar@northwestern.edu Nothing to disclose College of American Pathologists
More informationJanuary 15, 2009 (202) PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE CYTOLOGY PROFICIENCY TESTING REQUIRED BY THE CLINICAL LABORATORY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1988
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Room 352-G 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 Office of Media Affairs CMS FACT SHEET FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact:
More informationRepeat Thyroid Nodule Fine-Needle Aspiration in Patients With Initial Benign Cytologic Results
Anatomic Pathology / REPEAT THYROID FINE-NEEDLE ASPIRATION Repeat Thyroid Nodule Fine-Needle Aspiration in Patients With Initial Benign Cytologic Results Melina B. Flanagan, MD, MSPH, 1 N. Paul Ohori,
More informationBC Cancer Cervix Screening 2015 Program Results. February 2018
BC Cancer Cervix Screening 2015 Program Results BC Cancer Cervix Screening 2015 Program Results 2 Table of Contents BC Cancer Cervix Screening 2015 Program Results... 1 Table of Contents... 2 Program Overview...
More informationThe LAST Guidelines in Clinical Practice. Implementing Recommendations for p16 Use
AJCP / Original Article The LAST Guidelines in Clinical Practice Implementing Recommendations for p16 Use Lani K. Clinton, MD, PhD, 1,2 Kyle Miyazaki, 1 Asia Ayabe, 1 James Davis, PhD, 2 Pamela Tauchi-Nishi,
More informationHow invasive cervical cancer audit affects clinical practice
How invasive cervical cancer audit affects clinical practice Referring to NHSCSP and EU guidelines and audits in Southampton and London Amanda Herbert Guy s & St Thomas Foundation NHS Trust How invasive
More informationAssociate Professor of Gyn. & Obs., Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Assessment of Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) as a Screening Test for Cervical Neoplasia in Comparison with Cytologic Screening in Imam Khomeini Hospital F. Ghaemmaghami, MD Associate Professor
More informationFor additional information on meeting the criteria for Mohs, see Appendix 2.
Position Statement on Appropriate Uses of Paraffin Sections in Association (Approved by the Board of Directors: August 1, 2011; Revised November 5, 2011; Revised August 9, 2014) According to AMA/CPT, Mohs
More informationPeritoneal Involvement in Stage II Colon Cancer
Anatomic Pathology / PERITONEAL INVOLVEMENT IN STAGE II COLON CANCER Peritoneal Involvement in Stage II Colon Cancer A.M. Lennon, MB, MRCPI, H.E. Mulcahy, MD, MRCPI, J.M.P. Hyland, MCh, FRCS, FRCSI, C.
More informationClinical Policy Title: Fluorescence in situ hybridization for cervical cancer screening
Clinical Policy Title: Fluorescence in situ hybridization for cervical cancer screening Clinical Policy Number: 01.01.02 Effective Date: April 1, 2015 Initial Review Date: January 21, 2015 Most Recent
More informationDysplasia: layer of the cervical CIN. Intraepithelial Neoplasia. p16 immunostaining. 1, Cervical. Higher-risk, requires CIN.
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE Guideline Number: DHMP_DHMC_PG1015 Guideline Subject: Routine Cervical Cancer Screening Effective Date: 9/2018 Revision Date: 9/2019 Pages: 2 of 2 Quality Management Committee
More informationStudy of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Breast Lump: Correlation of Cytologically Malignant Cases with Their Histological Findings
Study of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Breast Lump: Correlation of Cytologically Malignant Cases with Their Histological Findings Touhid Uddin Rupom 1, Tamanna Choudhury 2, Sultana Gulshana Banu 3
More informationNPQR 2018 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) Measures 21_18247_LS.
NPQR 2018 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) Measures 21_18247_LS MEASURE ID: NPQR1 MEASURE TITLE: Notification to the Ordering Provider Requesting Myoglobin or CK-MB in the Diagnosis of Suspected
More informationPatients referred to a colposcopy clinic will often have
The Accuracy of the Papanicolaou Smear in the Screening and Diagnostic Settings Marylou Cárdenas-Turanzas, MD, DrPH, 1 Michele Follen, MD, PhD, 2 Graciela M. Nogueras-Gonzalez, MPH, 1 J.L. Benedet, MD,
More informationI have no financial interests in any product I will discuss today.
Cervical Cancer Prevention: 2012 and Beyond George F. Sawaya, MD Professor Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics University of California,
More informationClinical Practice Guidelines June 2013
Clinical Practice Guidelines June 2013 General Principles: The Papanicolaou (Pap) smear is widely credited with reducing mortality from cervical cancer, and remains the single best method for the early
More informationManitoba Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Operations & Statistical Report and 2006
anitoba Cervical Cancer Screening Program Operations & Statistical Report 2005 and 2006 1 MCCSP 2005-2006 Report ANITOBA CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING PROGRAM 2005 and 2006 Operations & Statistical Report
More informationCervical Cancer Screening for the Primary Care Physician for Average Risk Individuals Clinical Practice Guidelines. June 2013
Cervical Cancer Screening for the Primary Care Physician for Average Risk Individuals Clinical Practice Guidelines General Principles: Since its introduction in 1943, Papanicolaou (Pap) smear is widely
More informationAcceptable predictive accuracy of histopathology results by colposcopy done by Gynecology residents using Reid index
DOI 10.1007/s00404-012-2569-y GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY Acceptable predictive accuracy of histopathology results by colposcopy done by Gynecology residents using Reid index Hadi Shojaei Fariba Yarandi Leila
More informationThe Korean Journal of Cytopathology 13(1): 14-20, 2002
13 1 The Korean Journal of Cytopathology 13(1): 14-20, 2002 : ASCUS 1941 Papanicolaou. The Bethesda System(TBS) 1) 1988, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance(ascus), low-grade squamous
More informationLong-Term Outcome and Relative Risk in Women With Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance
Anatomic Pathology / LONG-TERM OUTCOME WITH ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE Long-Term Outcome and Relative Risk in Women With Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance Stephen
More informationMaking Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening
Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening New Guidelines published November 2012 Tammie Koehler DO, FACOG The incidence of cervical cancer in the US has decreased more than 50% in the past 30 years because
More informationA re-audit of Prostate biopsies from January to December 2010 and 2013.
A re-audit of Prostate biopsies from January to December 2010 and 2013. Dr. M S Siddiqui Consultant Histopathologist University Hospital of North Tees Stockton on Tees. Objectives To assess and compare
More informationInterpretation of Breast Pathology in the Era of Minimally Invasive Procedures
Shahla Masood, M.D. Professor and Chair Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine University of Florida College of Medicine Jacksonville Medical Director, UF Health Breast Center Chief of Pathology
More informationStudy Number: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period Study Design: Centres: Indication Treatment: Objectives: Primary Outcome/Efficacy Variable:
The study listed may include approved and non-approved uses, formulations or treatment regimens. The results reported in any single study may not reflect the overall results obtained on studies of a product.
More informationInternational Society of Gynecological Pathologists Symposium 2007
International Society of Gynecological Pathologists Symposium 2007 Anais Malpica, M.D. Department of Pathology The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Grading of Ovarian Cancer Histologic grade
More informationUnderstanding Your Pap Test Results
Understanding Your Pap Test Results Most laboratories in the United States use a standard set of terms called the Bethesda System to report pap test results. Normal: Pap samples that have no cell abnormalities
More informationTaking Laboratory Coding for a Spin. Corrie Alvarez, CPC, CPMA, CPC-I, CEDC
Taking Laboratory Coding for a Spin Corrie Alvarez, CPC, CPMA, CPC-I, CEDC Agenda Overview of Laboratory Discuss Common Laboratory Terms Coding Guidelines Review Drug Testing, Anatomical Pathology Discuss
More informationEvaluation of Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions, Cannot Exclude High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions on Cervical Smear
The Korean Journal of Pathology 2010; 44: 528-35 DOI: 10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2010.44.5.528 Evaluation of Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions, Cannot Exclude High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions
More informationAward Top Quizzes For Residents
Award Top Quizzes For Residents Giovanni Negri, MD, Bolzano (Italy) Eva M. Wojcik MD, Department of Pathology, Loyola University, Chicago (USA) Esther D. Rossi MD, PhD, MIAC, Division of Anatomic Pathology
More informationAddendum report coding for the National Quality Improvement Programme in Histopathology: a multi-institutional audit
Addendum report coding for the National Quality Improvement Programme in Histopathology: a multi-institutional audit S. Mahon 1,3, D. Catargiu 2, S. Phelan 2, S. Crowther 3, N. Swan 1. St. Vincent s University
More informationCytopathology. Robert M Genta Pathologie Clinique Université de Genève
Cytopathology Robert M Genta Pathologie Clinique Université de Genève Learning objectives At the end of this hour you will know: 1. What cytopathology is 2. How specimens are collected, processed, and
More informationMorphologic Criteria of Invasive Colonic Adenocarcinoma on Biopsy Specimens
ISPUB.COM The Internet Journal of Pathology Volume 12 Number 1 Morphologic Criteria of Invasive Colonic Adenocarcinoma on Biopsy Specimens C Rose, H Wu Citation C Rose, H Wu.. The Internet Journal of Pathology.
More informationThe AutoPap Primary Screening System (APSS; Tripath Imaging,
CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY 129 A Feasibility Study of the Use of the AutoPap Screening System as a Primary Screening and Location-Guided Rescreening Device Massimo Confortini, M.D. 1 Lucia Bonardi, M.D. 1 Paolo
More informationMolecular markers for diagnosis and prognosis in cervical neoplasia Eijsink, Jasper Johannes Hendrikus
University of Groningen Molecular markers for diagnosis and prognosis in cervical neoplasia Eijsink, Jasper Johannes Hendrikus IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's
More informationEffective Health Care Program
Comparative Effectiveness Review Number 19 Effective Health Care Program Comparative Effectiveness of Core-Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions Executive Summary Background
More informationWhat is a Pap smear?
Pap smear What is a Pap smear? A Pap smear is a test that checks for changes in the cells of your cervix. The cervix is the lower part of the uterus that opens into the vagina. Developed over forty years
More informationHPV & CERVICAL CANCER POLICY & LEGISLATIVE TOOLKIT, 3 RD EDITION
HPV Vaccine FAST FACTS: Payer & Reimbursement Strategies Medicaid: Many state Medicaid programs cover the HPV vaccine, though this coverage varies by state. Information on coverage can be found through
More informationAgreement Between Cytotechnologists and Cytopathologists as a New Measure of Cytopathologist Performance in Gynecologic Cytology
Agreement Between Cytotechnologists and Cytopathologists as a New Measure of Cytopathologist Performance in Gynecologic Cytology Andrew M. Quinn, MD 1 ; Abu T. Minhajuddin, PhD 2 ; Linda S. Hynan, PhD
More informationClinical outcomes after conservative management of CIN1/2, CIN2, and CIN2/3 in women ages years
Clinical outcomes after conservative management of CIN1/2, CIN2, and CIN2/3 in women ages 21-39 years Michelle I. Silver, PhD, ScM Cancer Prevention Fellow National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer
More informationAlabama Department of Public Health County Health Department Protocol
Alabama Department of Public Health County Health Department Protocol BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER TABLE OF CONTENTS ABCCEDP Overview and Purpose... 1 Clinical Guidelines... 1 Patient Enrollment... 1 Resource
More informationPap Smears Pelvic Examinations Well Woman Examinations. When should you have them performed???
Pap Smears Pelvic Examinations Well Woman Examinations. When should you have them performed??? Arlene Evans-DeBeverly, PA-C Copyright 2012 There are always ongoing changes in gynecology, including the
More informationGUIDELINE FOR SCREENING FOR CERVICAL CANCER: REVISED
GUIDELINE FOR SCREENING FOR CERVICAL CANCER: REVISED This guideline is a revised version of the guideline developed in February 2000, by the Cervical Cancer Screening Working Group. This revised version
More informationAn audit of liquid-based cervical cytology screening samples (ThinPrep and SurePath) reported as glandular neoplasia
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2303.2009.00695.x An audit of liquid-based cervical cytology screening samples (ThinPrep and SurePath) reported as glandular neoplasia S. A. Thiryayi, J. Marshall and D. N. Rana Manchester
More informationCervical Testing and Results Management. An Evidenced-Based Approach April 22nd, Debora Bear, MSN, MPH
Cervical Testing and Results Management An Evidenced-Based Approach April 22nd, 2010 Debora Bear, MSN, MPH Assistant Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, Inc. Burden of cervical cancer
More informationEradicating Mortality from Cervical Cancer
Eradicating Mortality from Cervical Cancer Michelle Berlin, MD, MPH Vice Chair, Obstetrics & Gynecology Associate Director, Center for Women s Health June 2, 2009 Overview Prevention Human Papilloma Virus
More information76 Arch Pathol Lab Med Vol 138, January 2014 p16 Utilization in Cervical Biopsies Singh et al
Variability of Pathologists Utilization of p16 and Ki-67 Immunostaining in the Diagnosis of Cervical Biopsies in Routine Pathology Practice and Its Impact on the Frequencies of Cervical Intraepithelial
More informationVolume 2 Issue ISSN
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012 ISSN 2250-0359 Correlation of fine needle aspiration and final histopathology in thyroid disease: a series of 702 patients managed in an endocrine surgical unit *Chandrasekaran Maharajan
More informationAn Update on Cervical Cancer Screening Recommendations and on the DOH BCC Program
An Update on Cervical Cancer Screening Recommendations and on the DOH BCC Program Susan Baum, MD, MPH NM Nurse Practitioner Council Annual Conference April 20, 2012 I have no commercial relationships related
More informationScreening for Cervical Cancer: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540
More informationThe Korean Journal of Cytopathology 15 (1) : 17-27, 2004
5 The Korean Journal of Cytopathology 5 () : 7-7, / 5 / / (human papillomavirus, HPV), 6%, 5% HPV. HPV HPV. HPV HPV,,5 HPV HPV. HPV, 6 HPV. HPV HPV International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) HPV
More informationMeasure Specifications Measure Description
CMS ID/CMS QCDR ID: CAP 25 Title: Time for Pancreas Specifications Description Percentage of all eligible pancreatic exocrine carcinoma (including small cell and large cell (poorly differentiated) neuroendocrine
More informationThe society for lower genital tract disorders since 1964.
The society for lower genital tract disorders since 1964. Updated Consensus Guidelines for Managing Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors American Society for and Cervical Pathology
More informationCervical cytology screening has led to a reduction in cancer mortality
CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY 105 ThinPrep Pap Test Performance and Biopsy Follow-Up in a University Hospital A. Betts Carpenter, M.D., Ph.D. Diane D. Davey, M.D. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,
More informationNUMERATOR: Reports that include the pt category, the pn category and the histologic grade
Measure #99 (NQF 0391): Breast Cancer Resection Pathology Reporting: pt Category (Primary Tumor) and pn Category (Regional Lymph Nodes) with Histologic Grade National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective
More informationOutcome of Atypical Squamous Cells in Cervical Cytology: Follow-up Assessment by Loop Electrical Excision Procedure
The Korean Journal of Pathology 2012; 46: 359-364 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Outcome of Atypical Squamous Cells in Cervical Cytology: Follow-up Assessment by Loop Electrical Excision Procedure Joon Seon Song Ilseon
More informationCytopathology Education and Technology Consortium
American Society of Cytopathology Executive Board Meeting AGENDA May 3, 2010, 7:30 AM 4:00 PM, Central Valencia Room Intercontinental Hotel Chicago, Illinois Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium
More informationL impact attendu de la vaccination contre le virus du papillome humain sur les pratiques de dépistage du cancer du col uterin
10 es Journées annuelles de santé publique Palais des congrès de Montréal 23 au 27 octobre 2006 L impact attendu de la vaccination contre le virus du papillome humain sur les pratiques de dépistage du
More informationHPV Genotyping: A New Dimension in Cervical Cancer Screening Tests
HPV Genotyping: A New Dimension in Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Lee P. Shulman MD The Anna Ross Lapham Professor in Obstetrics and Gynecology and Chief, Division of Clinical Genetics Feinberg School
More informationBiomed Environ Sci, 2015; 28(1): 80-84
80 Biomed Environ Sci, 2015; 28(1): 80-84 Letter to the Editor Assessing the Effectiveness of a Cervical Cancer Screening Program in a Hospital-based Study* YANG Yi1, LANG Jing He1, WANG You Fang1, CHENG
More informationManagement Algorithms for Abnormal Cervical Cytology and Colposcopy
Management Algorithms for Abnormal Cervical Cytology and Colposcopy Table of Contents Standard Colposcopic Definitions... 1 Guidelines for the Assessment of Abnormal Cervical Cytology... 2 Ia: Persistent
More informationNational Cervical Screening Program MBS Item Descriptors
National Cervical Screening Program MBS Item Descriptors Item Item descriptor 73070 A test, including partial genotyping, for oncogenic human papillomavirus that may be associated with cervical pre-cancer
More informationMaster. Cytopathology Checklist. Every patient deserves the GOLD STANDARD... CAP Accreditation Program
Master Every patient deserves the GOLD STANDARD... Cytopathology Checklist CAP Accreditation Program College of American Pathologists 325 Waukegan Road Northfield, IL 60093-2750 www.cap.org 07.28.2015
More informationAtypical Glandular Cells of Undetermined Significance Outcome Predictions Based on Human Papillomavirus Testing
Anatomic Pathology / ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELLS AND HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS Atypical Glandular Cells of Undetermined Significance Outcome Predictions Based on Human Papillomavirus Testing Jeffrey F. Krane,
More information!"#$%&'(#)*$+&,$-&.#,$/#0()1-$ ),1')$2(%&,2#,%$%(0'#$34567$
!"#$%&'(#)*$+&,$-&.#,$/#0()1-$ ),1')$2(%&,2#,%$%(0'#$34567$ Updated Consensus Guidelines for Managing Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors American Society for and Cervical Pathology
More informationWorkshop for O& G trainees and paramedics 17 Dec 2011 Cytological Interpretation
Workshop for O& G trainees and paramedics 17 Dec 2011 Cytological Interpretation May Yu Director of Cytology Laboratory Service Department of Anatomical & Cellular Pathology Prince of Wales Hospital Cervical
More informationDepartment of Health Standard for the Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Approval Date: 08 May 2018 Effective Date: 13 May 2018
Document Title: Department of Health Standard for the Cervical Cancer Screening Program Document Ref. Number: DOH/CCSC/SD/1.0 Version: 1.0 Approval Date: 08 May 2018 Effective Date: 13 May 2018 Last Reviewed:
More informationExploitation of Epigenetic Changes to Distinguish Benign from Malignant Prostate Biopsies
Exploitation of Epigenetic Changes to Distinguish Benign from Malignant Prostate Biopsies Disclosures MDxHealth Scientific Advisor 2 Case Study 54-year-old man referred for a PSA of 7 - Healthy, minimal
More informationThe TNM classification is a worldwide benchmark for reporting the
1 COMMENTARY The Process for Continuous Improvement of the TNM Classification Mary K. Gospodarowicz, M.D. 1 Daniel Miller, M.D., M.P.H. 2 Patti A. Groome, M.Sc., Ph.D. 3 Frederick L. Greene, M.D. 4 Pamela
More informationHistological Typing Of Cancer And Precancer Of The Oral Mucosa
Histological Typing Of Cancer And Precancer Of The Oral Mucosa 1 / 7 2 / 7 3 / 7 Histological Typing Of Cancer And Within the last decade, histologic grading has become widely accepted as a powerful indicator
More informationNorthern Ireland Cervical Screening Programme
Northern Ireland Cervical Screening Programme ANNUAL REPORT & STATISTICAL BULLETIN 2010-2011 1 Report produced by : Quality Assurance Reference Centre, PHA Date of Publication: September 2012 2 Contents
More information