Skip to main content
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1991 Aug;64(2):315–320. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.298

Sarcomas in north west England: I. Histopathological peer review.

M Harris 1, A L Hartley 1, V Blair 1, J M Birch 1, S S Banerjee 1, A J Freemont 1, J McClure 1, L J McWilliam 1
PMCID: PMC1977501  PMID: 1892759

Abstract

A total of 468 cases of bone, soft tissue and visceral sarcomas (and certain other tumours) diagnosed during the years 1982-84 in North West England were entered in a study of histopathological peer review, incidence and survival. This paper describes the effects of peer review. Material was reviewed by a panel of five pathologists for 413 of the 450 cases originally registered as sarcomas with the Regional Cancer Registry. The diagnosis of sarcomas was confirmed in 76% cases and and there was agreement on sub-type for 53% cases. Measures of agreement were lowest for the two sub-types most commonly diagnosed i.e. malignant fibrous histiocytoma and leiomyosarcoma. Degree of agreement between individual pathologists and final panel diagnosis was also very variable but never less than 65%. It is concluded that second opinion is essential in cases of presumed sarcomas for studies of incidence and aetiology and to ensure that appropriate treatment is selected.

Full text

PDF
315

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alvegård T. A., Berg N. O. Histopathology peer review of high-grade soft tissue sarcoma: the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group experience. J Clin Oncol. 1989 Dec;7(12):1845–1851. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1989.7.12.1845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Presant C. A., Russell W. O., Alexander R. W., Fu Y. S. Soft-tissue and bone sarcoma histopathology peer review: the frequency of disagreement in diagnosis and the need for second pathology opinions. The Southeastern Cancer Study Group experience. J Clin Oncol. 1986 Nov;4(11):1658–1661. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.11.1658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Shiraki M., Enterline H. T., Brooks J. J., Cooper N. S., Hirschl S., Roth J. A., Rao U. N., Enzinger F. M., Amato D. A., Borden E. C. Pathologic analysis of advanced adult soft tissue sarcomas, bone sarcomas, and mesotheliomas. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) experience. Cancer. 1989 Jul 15;64(2):484–490. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19890715)64:2<484::aid-cncr2820640223>3.0.co;2-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Whitehead M. E., Fitzwater J. E., Lindley S. K., Kern S. B., Ulirsch R. C., Winecoff W. F., 3rd Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses: a prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1984 Apr;81(4):487–491. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/81.4.487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES