Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer

dc.centroUniversidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU
dc.contributor.authorMinig Ramos, Lucas
dc.contributor.authorCárdenas Rebollo, José Miguel
dc.contributor.authorBosch Martí, José Manuel
dc.contributor.authorIllueca Ballester, Carmen
dc.contributor.authorZorrero Martínez, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorCruz Mojarrieta, Julia Cecilia
dc.contributor.authorRomero Noguera, Ignacio
dc.contributor.otherUCH. Departamento de Cirugía (Extinguido)
dc.contributor.otherProducción Científica UCH 2019
dc.contributor.otherUCH. Departamento de Medicina y Cirugía
dc.date2019
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-05T05:00:41Z
dc.date.available2020-03-05T05:00:41Z
dc.date.issued2019-05-13
dc.descriptionEste artículo se encuentra disponible en la página web de la revista en la siguiente URL: https://ecancer.org/en/journal/article/929-relevance-of-minor-discrepancies-at-second-pathology-review-in-gynaecological-cancer
dc.description.abstractAim: To determine the incidence of discrepancy rate between the initial pathology diagnosis and referral diagnosis in women with gynaecological cancer. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed including all consecutive patients with gynaecological cancer referred and who underwent pathologic review between January 2013 and May 2017. Discrepancies were minor when future treatment was not altered or major when the treatment was modified. Results: A total of 259 patients were included. The original diagnosis was ovarian cancer (n = 126, 48.6%), endometrial cancer (n = 84, 32.4%), cervical cancer (n = 43, 16.6%) and vulvar cancer (n = 6, 2.3%). Eighteen women (6.9%) had major discrepancies and 69 patients (26.6%) had minor discrepancies. The main reason for the minor discrepancy was tumour grade or histology subtype. Regarding ovarian cancer, 13 out of 16 patients had minor discrepancies at histology subtype among serous, endometrioid, mucinous or undifferentiated tumours. The main issue for the minor discrepancy in patients with cervical cancer was among different subtype of cervical adenocarcinoma. Minor discrepancies due to tumour grade were also observed in 14, 19, 8 and 3 patients with endometrial, ovarian, cervical and vulvar cancer, respectively. Conclusions: A second pathology review also adds valid information in those cases with minor discrepancies leading to a difference in patients´ counselling regarding follow-up and prognosis.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.citationMinig, L., Bosch, JM., Illueca, C., Zorrero, Cárdenas-Rebollo, JM., Cruz, J. et al. (2019). Relevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer. ecancermedicalscience, vol. 19, art. 929 (13 may). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2019.929
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2019.929
dc.identifier.issn1754-6605 (Electrónico)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10637/10779
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherecancer.
dc.relation.ispartofecancermedicalscience, vol. 19, art. 929 (13 may 2019).
dc.rightsopen access
dc.rights.cchttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subjectAparato genital femenino - Cáncer - Diagnóstico.
dc.subjectAparato genital femenino - Enfermedades - Diagnóstico.
dc.subjectGenerative organs, Female - Cancer - Diagnosis.
dc.subjectGenerative organs, Female - Diseases - Diagnosis.
dc.titleRelevance of minor discrepancies at second pathology review in gynaecological cancer
dc.typeArtículo
dspace.entity.typePublicationes
relation.isAuthorOfPublication0171fd28-1c34-471c-9a49-a911b50138ae
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery0171fd28-1c34-471c-9a49-a911b50138ae

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Relevance_Minig_Ecancermedicalscience_2019.pdf
Size:
1.06 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format