Concordance of Expert Consultation Diagnoses in the Review of Pelvic Washing Specimens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Cytologic specimens are routinely collected as part of gynecologic oncology surgery. Consultation cases often include cytology specimens. Outside diagnosis was compared to consultation diagnosis for cytopathology specimens that were part of larger oncologic cases. Study Design: Gynecologic pathology consultation cases containing pelvic washing (PW) material were queried. Cases had major discordance if the diagnosis changed from negative to positive or vice versa, and minor discordance if an atypical diagnosis was changed to positive or negative or vice versa. Results: Of 237 cases, 9 showed major discordance (4%), 29 showed minor discordance (12%) and the remaining 199 no discordance (84%). The 9 major discordance cases involved PWs from cases that were performed for ovarian pathology. Treatment would have changed in only 2 of the cases with major discordance. Of the minor discordance cases, 21/29 (72%) involved PW from ovarian cases and 8/29 (28%) were PW from uterine cases. Conclusions: Only a few cases showed major or minor discordance, and of those that were discordant, most involved ovarian specimens. Major discordance between original and consulting diagnoses would have changed treatment in only 2 cases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)452-456
Number of pages5
JournalActa cytologica
Volume59
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Keywords

  • Gynecologic pathology
  • Pelvic washing specimens
  • Peritoneal fluid

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Concordance of Expert Consultation Diagnoses in the Review of Pelvic Washing Specimens'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this