Histopathologic Diagnosis of Pediatric Neoplasms A Review of International Consultations

and the Department of Pathology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis (Dr Jenkins).
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (Impact Factor: 2.84). 11/2013; 137(11):1648-53. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0571-OA
Source: PubMed


Context.-Correct histopathologic diagnosis is fundamental to defining proper treatment and improving outcomes in children with malignancies. The Department of Pathology at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (SJCRH) has collaborated with SJCRH International Outreach Program partner sites to improve the accuracy of histopathologic diagnoses in countries with limited resources. Pathologists at SJCRH provide review and evaluation of cases that are considered difficult or complex. Objectives.-To determine the quality of pathology diagnosis and to identify areas for improvement in our international partner sites, we retrospectively analyzed all the international cases that were submitted for review. A comparison of our data with selected reports of surgical pathology error rates published in the medical literature was performed. Design.-From January 2009 through December 2011, SJCRH received 763 cases submitted by international pathologists from 37 countries for histopathologic review and evaluation. Of 763 cases reviewed, 705 (92.4%) met the criteria for inclusion in this study. Rates of concordance between the submitted diagnoses and SJCRH reviewed diagnoses were analyzed. Results.-Overall concordance, minor disagreement, and major disagreement rates between submitted diagnoses and SJCRH reviewed diagnoses were 430 (61.0%), 98 (13.9%), and 177 (25.1%) of the cases, respectively. Major disagreement rates ranged from 13.7% to 37.1% among studied countries. Conclusions.-The major disagreement rate between referring international sites and SJCRH was substantially higher than the major disagreement rate among US institutions. Lack of the availability of immunohistochemistry and the training of pathologists in the diagnosis of pediatric neoplasms may have contributed to the discrepancies.

Download full-text


Available from: Jesse Jenkins, Aug 20, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While they account for one fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher-than-average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision-making. Rules of rational decision-making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to step wisely test sets of new agents, as from the early post-Phase 1 development stage, should be encouraged. Also the compassionate and the off-label settings should be exploited to generate new evidence, and flexible regulatory innovations such as adaptive licensing could convey new agents early to rare cancer patients, while generating evidence. Though validation of surrogate end-points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones. Disease-based communities, involving clinicians and patients, should be regularly consulted by regulatory bodies when setting their policies on drug approval and reimbursement in specific rare cancers.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2014 · Annals of Oncology