Shibata Yoshihiro, Kajitani Tatsuhiro, Matsuyama Atsushi, Nakano Ryuji
Department of Oncology, Fukuoka Wajiro Hospital, Fukuoka, JPN.
Department of Pathology, Fukuoka Wajiro Hospital, Fukuoka, JPN.
Cureus. 2025 Jan 28;17(1):e78114. doi: 10.7759/cureus.78114. eCollection 2025 Jan.
Introduction Pathological autopsy is useful for elucidating pathological conditions and causes of death that are not known clinically. In recent years, pathological autopsies have decreased worldwide, and few studies have evaluated the discrepancy between clinical diagnosis and autopsy findings of malignant tumors. Goldman criteria classify discrepancies between clinical and pathological autopsy diagnoses, as follows: Class I (major discrepancies), missed major diagnosis; Class II (obvious discrepancies), missed major diagnosis; Class III, missed minor diagnosis; and Class IV, other missed minor diagnoses. Objective The Goldman criteria are used to assess discordance between antemortem clinical diagnosis and pathological autopsy, with major discordance rates reported at 16.6%-59%. The objective of this study was to investigate the usefulness of pathological autopsy in patients with malignant tumors. Methodology The Goldman criteria were applied to evaluate discordance between the antemortem clinical diagnosis and the diagnosis at pathological autopsy in 25 patients with malignant tumors who underwent pathological autopsy at the Department of Oncology, Fukuoka Wajiro Hospital, from December 2015 to May 2023, to assess the utility of pathological autopsy in clinical practice retrospectively. Results Eight patients (32%) were Class I, four (16%) were Class II in accordance with the Goldman criteria, and 11 (44%) were Class I/II, which was considered a major discordance. Class I discordance was difficult to diagnose by imaging and comprised histological discordance, sepsis, pulmonary infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, aplastic anemia, and bone marrow carcinomatosis. The most common conditions that were difficult to diagnose by imaging were metastases to the gastrointestinal tract, biliary system, and pancreas, which were more frequently revealed at pathological autopsy. Conclusions Pathological autopsy is a valuable tool for understanding the pathology of diseases as it reveals significant discrepancies between antemortem diagnoses and autopsy findings, particularly regarding disease extent, histological diagnosis, and causes of death.
引言
病理尸检有助于阐明临床未知的病理状况和死亡原因。近年来,全球范围内病理尸检数量有所减少,很少有研究评估恶性肿瘤临床诊断与尸检结果之间的差异。戈德曼标准将临床与病理尸检诊断之间的差异分为以下几类:I类(主要差异),漏诊主要诊断;II类(明显差异),漏诊主要诊断;III类,漏诊次要诊断;IV类,其他漏诊次要诊断。
目的
戈德曼标准用于评估生前临床诊断与病理尸检之间的不一致性,主要不一致率报告为16.6%-59%。本研究的目的是调查病理尸检在恶性肿瘤患者中的实用性。
方法
应用戈德曼标准评估2015年12月至2023年5月在福冈和白医院肿瘤科接受病理尸检的25例恶性肿瘤患者生前临床诊断与病理尸检诊断之间的不一致性,以回顾性评估病理尸检在临床实践中的实用性。
结果
根据戈德曼标准,8例患者(32%)为I类,4例(16%)为II类,11例(44%)为I/II类,被认为是主要不一致。I类不一致难以通过影像学诊断,包括组织学不一致、败血症、肺梗死、弥散性血管内凝血、再生障碍性贫血和骨髓转移癌。影像学难以诊断的最常见情况是胃肠道、胆道系统和胰腺转移,病理尸检时更常发现这些情况。
结论
病理尸检是了解疾病病理学的宝贵工具,因为它揭示了生前诊断与尸检结果之间的显著差异,特别是在疾病范围、组织学诊断和死亡原因方面。