Oselin Kersti, Girard Nicolas, Lepik Katrin, Adamson-Raieste Aidi, Vanakesa Tõnu, Almre Ingemar, Leismann Tiina, Chalabreysse Lara
Department of Chemotherapy, North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn 13419, Estonia.
Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon (Bron) 69677, France.
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Feb;11(2):456-464. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.12.123.
Thymic epithelial tumors are rare thoracic tumors for which pathological diagnosis is challenging due to the definition of multiple subtypes, tumor heterogeneity, and variations in interobserver reproducibility. In this study, we aimed at analyzing the quality of pathological reporting in line with the consistency between initial diagnosis and final diagnosis after expert review through a collaboration between the largest thoracic oncology center in Estonia, and one expert center in France.
Hospital electronic database and pathology databases from the Tallinn North Estonia Medical Centre were searched for thymic and mediastinal tumors from 2010 to 2017. Pathology specimens were referred to the Pathology Department of the Lyon University hospital. Overall, 55 tissue specimens from 49 patients were included.
From pathology reports, tumor size, diagnosis, and invasion had been mentioned in ≥80% of cases, while resection status and staging were assessed in only 48% and 17% of cases, respectively. The initial diagnosis was consistent with that of the review in 60% of cases. Diagnostic concordance for thymoma subtypes was low (Cohen's kappa 0.34, 95% CI: 0.16-0.52). Overall, a major change in the management of 8 (16%) patients had to be made after pathological review: 3 patients had a normal thymus according to the reference centre, while thymoma B1 or B2 had been diagnosed locally; 5 additional patients had a final diagnosis of non-thymic tumor.
Implementing structured pathology reports may help to decrease discrepancies in the diagnosis of thymic epithelial tumors. The development of expert networks is an opportunity to improve diagnosis and patient care, particularly in regard to rare cancers.
胸腺上皮肿瘤是罕见的胸部肿瘤,由于多种亚型的定义、肿瘤异质性以及观察者间再现性的差异,其病理诊断具有挑战性。在本研究中,我们旨在通过爱沙尼亚最大的胸部肿瘤中心与法国一个专家中心的合作,根据专家评审后的初始诊断与最终诊断之间的一致性来分析病理报告的质量。
检索了塔林北爱沙尼亚医学中心2010年至2017年的医院电子数据库和病理数据库,以查找胸腺和纵隔肿瘤。病理标本被送至里昂大学医院病理科。总共纳入了来自49例患者的55份组织标本。
在病理报告中,≥80%的病例提到了肿瘤大小、诊断和侵犯情况,而分别只有48%和17%的病例评估了切除状态和分期。60%的病例初始诊断与评审诊断一致。胸腺瘤亚型的诊断一致性较低(Cohen's kappa 0.34,95%CI:0.16 - 0.52)。总体而言,病理评审后8例(16%)患者的治疗方案有重大改变:根据参考中心的结果,3例患者胸腺正常,而当地诊断为胸腺瘤B1或B2;另外5例患者最终诊断为非胸腺肿瘤。
实施结构化病理报告可能有助于减少胸腺上皮肿瘤诊断中的差异。专家网络的发展是改善诊断和患者护理的一个契机,尤其是对于罕见癌症。