Minig Ramos, LucasCárdenas Rebollo, José MiguelBosch Martí, José ManuelIllueca Ballester, CarmenZorrero Martínez, CristinaCruz Mojarrieta, Julia CeciliaRomero Noguera, IgnacioUCH. Departamento de Cirugía (Extinguido)Producción Científica UCH 2019UCH. Departamento de Medicina y Cirugía2020-03-052020-03-052019-05-13Minig, 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.2019.9291754-6605 (Electrónico)http://hdl.handle.net/10637/10779Este 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-cancerAim: 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.application/pdfenopen accessAparato genital femenino - Cáncer - Diagnóstico.Aparato genital femenino - Enfermedades - Diagnóstico.Generative organs, Female - Cancer - Diagnosis.Generative organs, Female - Diseases - Diagnosis.Artículohttps://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2019.929https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es