Patterns of Major Frozen Section Interpretation Error: An In-Depth Analysis From a Complex Academic Surgical Pathology Practice.
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 37141256.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1093/ajcp/aqad040.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To establish baseline error rates due to misinterpretation and to identify scenarios in which major errors were most common and potentially preventable. Our database was queried over a 3-year period for major discrepancies due to misinterpretation. These were stratified by histomorphologic setting, service, availability/type of prior material, and years of experience and subspecialization of the interpreting pathologist. The overall discordance rate between frozen section (FS) and final diagnoses was 2.9% (199/6,910). Seventy-two errors were due to interpretation, of which 34 (47.2%) were major. Major error rates were highest on the gastrointestinal and thoracic services. Of major discrepancies, 82.4% were rendered in subdisciplines outside those of the FS pathologist. Pathologists with fewer than 10 years' experience made more errors than those with more experience (55.9% vs 23.5%, P = .006). Major error rates were greater for cases without previous material compared to those with a prior glass slide (47.1% vs 17.6%, P = .009). Common histomorphologic scenarios in which disagreements were made involved discriminating mesothelial cells from carcinoma (20.6%) and accurately recognizing squamous carcinoma/severe dysplasia (17.6%). To improve performance and decrease future misdiagnoses, monitoring discordances should be a continuous component of surgical pathology quality assurance programs.
Medical subject headings
- Pathology, Surgical