Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Legal Medicine and Forensic Pathology Unit, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Italy.
Department of Prevention, Legal Medicine Unit, Azienda ULSS 8 Berica, Italy.
Med Sci Law. 2021 Jan;61(1_suppl):25-35. doi: 10.1177/0025802420965763.
The magnitude of the diagnostic benefit conferred by performing histopathological examinations after medico-legal/forensic autopsies remains debatable. We have tried to address this issue by reviewing a series of histopathology referrals concerning medico-legal autopsies in real-world routine practice. We present an audit of the consultations provided to forensics by clinical pathologists at our institute between 2015 and 2018. Over this period, 493 post-mortem examinations were performed by forensic pathologists. Of these cases, 52 (11%) were referred for histopathology. Gross assessment was requested in 22/52 (42%) cases. Histopathology examination was performed on single organs in 15/52 (29%) cases, primarily on the lung and heart, whereas parenchymatous multi-organ analysis was carried out in 14/52 (27%) cases. Bone-marrow sampling was studied in 4/52 (8%) cases. Immunohistochemistry was needed in 16/52 (31%) cases, special stains in 9/52 (21%) cases and molecular analysis in 4/52 (8%) cases. Focusing on technical processes, standard methodology on pre-analytical procedures was changed in 10/52 (19%) cases in order to answer specific diagnostic questions. We showed that although most of the time the diagnosis is clear by the end of dissection on the basis of the macroscopic findings, histopathology can provide, modify or confirm the cause of death in many medico-legal/forensic cases. Therefore, it is desirable that forensic pathologists and clinical pathologists establish robust working relationships in a cooperative environment. We conclude that it is important to implement guidelines based on real-world routine practice in order to identify cases where histopathology can provide useful contributions, which in our experience applied to 11% of forensic cases.
进行医学法医学/法医解剖后进行组织病理学检查所带来的诊断益处的大小仍然存在争议。我们试图通过审查一系列在实际常规实践中进行的医学法医学解剖的组织病理学转诊来解决这个问题。我们介绍了我们研究所的临床病理学家在 2015 年至 2018 年期间向法医提供的咨询情况的审核。在此期间,法医病理学家进行了 493 例尸检。在这些病例中,有 52 例(11%)被转介进行组织病理学检查。22/52(42%)例要求进行大体评估。在 15/52(29%)例中,对单个器官进行了组织病理学检查,主要是肺和心脏,而在 14/52(27%)例中进行了实质多器官分析。在 4/52(8%)例中研究了骨髓取样。16/52(31%)例需要免疫组织化学,9/52(21%)例需要特殊染色,4/52(8%)例需要分子分析。在技术流程方面,为了回答特定的诊断问题,有 10/52(19%)例改变了预分析程序的标准方法。我们表明,尽管大多数情况下,根据解剖后的宏观发现,诊断已经很明确,但组织病理学可以为许多医学法医学/法医案例提供、修改或确认死因。因此,法医病理学家和临床病理学家在合作环境中建立强有力的工作关系是可取的。我们得出的结论是,根据实际常规实践实施指南以确定组织病理学可以提供有用贡献的情况非常重要,根据我们的经验,这适用于 11%的法医案例。