Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Sarcoma. 2009;2009:741975. doi: 10.1155/2009/741975. Epub 2009 May 27.

Histopathological diagnostic discrepancies in soft tissue tumours referred to a specialist centre.

Author information

  • 1Department of Histopathology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London SW3 6JJ, UK.


Aims. A study was performed to determine areas of diagnostic discrepancy in the reporting of cases of soft tissue tumours referred to a specialist sarcoma unit. This was to pinpoint common discrepancies and to determine their causes. Methods and Results. We compared the sarcoma unit's histopathology reports with referring reports on 349 specimens from 277 patients with suspected or proven soft tissue tumours in a one-year period. Conclusions. Diagnostic agreement was found in 256 of 349 cases (73.4%), with minor diagnostic discrepancy in 55 cases (15.7%) and major discrepancy in 38 cases (10.9%). Benign/malignant discordances accounted for only 5% of all discrepancies (5 cases). The most common discrepancies occurred in tumour classification, including diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumour and leiomyosarcoma and the subtyping of spindle cell sarcomas, as well as in tumour grading that could conceivably lead to changes in clinical management. Major diagnostic discrepancies leading to management change occurred in a relatively select range of tumour groups, and almost all discrepancies occurred due to differences in tumour interpretation between general or nonsoft tissue pathologists, and pathologists at the specialist unit. The findings support guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence that diagnostic review of soft tissue tumours should be performed by specialist soft tissue pathologists.

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Hindawi Publishing Corporation Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center