Comparison of first-opinion and second-opinion histopathology from dogs and cats with cancer: 430 cases (2001-2008).

Abstract

Second-opinion histopathology is intended to detect clinically significant discrepancies that have a direct impact on patient care. We sought to determine if this practice at our institution affected patient management and prognosis. First- and second-opinion histopathology reports from cases were retrospectively reviewed. Reports were considered to be in diagnostic agreement, partial diagnostic disagreement or complete diagnostic disagreement. Four hundred and thirty cases were studied. In 70% of cases there was a diagnostic agreement. In 20% of cases, there was partial diagnostic disagreement, where diagnoses were the same but information such as grade or lymphatic and/or vascular invasion was changed. In 10% of cases, complete diagnostic disagreement resulted from a change in degree of malignancy (malignant to benign, or converse; 7%) or a change in cell type (3%). In 17% of the cases evaluated, the histopathology review prompted a change in treatment or prognosis. These findings support the use of second-opinion histopathology as an important part of patient care.