Beware Pathology Results

By Evan Falchuk

The Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog says that cancer lab tests “aren’t always right.

They report on reports issued by two professional societies that point out that as many as 20% of a certain kind of test are inaccurate.  According to the Health Blog the problem is the tests “aren’t black and white, and rely on a pathologist’s judgment.”

Now, judgment is a critical factor in most everything in medicine, but perhaps nowhere else are the consequences of incorrect judgment so serious as in pathology.  As Dr. William Osler famously observed: “As is your pathology, so goes your clinical practice.”

But how widespread is this problem?

Published studies show that as many as 50% of pathology errors are due to “misinterpretation.“  Countries outside of the U.S. have been quicker to recognize to this problem, with the British and Canadian authorities trying to deal with major scandals resulting from the terrible harm that can come to patients from these kinds of misinterpretations.

We see these kinds of problems in our work at Best Doctors, too.

In cancer cases, we have learned that it is critical to have pathology re-reviewed at a major teaching hospital in order to make sure that the initial read was correct.  In our data from thousands of U.S. cases over the last 24 months, covering a very wide variety of cancer, we found that 15% of diagnosed cancers had misinterpretations in their pathology results.  In many cases, the correct interpretation led to major changes in the patient’s treatment plan.  These results track closely with the results of published studies on the problem.

Your life may depend on the judgment, and experience, of the pathologist.  If a pathologist has seen your kind of disease 1,000 times, he or she is going to be much more likely to interpret your sample correctly than one who has one seen it only a few times.  The trouble is, you likely have no idea who your pathologist is, what kind of experience they have, how long of a day they had had by the time they got to your sample, or likely anything else about what they did or who they are.

Ask questions.  Don’t be afraid to ask for a second opinion in which your pathology is going to be re-reviewed by someone else.  Your pathologist’s judgment is probably excellent, but if it’s not the consequences can be severe.  Be sure you are completely comfortable with what you’re being told before you do anything.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Thanks, Peter, that is very interesting.

    Not enough people realize how important getting those results right really is.

    You may find yourself “failing” a particular therapy, only to find that the reason is because your disease isn’t what you think it is.

  • http://www.tissuestudio.com Peter Duncan

    100% Agreed. As a disclaimer, I work for Definiens (digital pathology image analysis software provider) and we have just struck an alliance with Philips' digital pathology division to generate more accurate and objective results of Her2, ER, PR, ki67 and p53 analysis. Objective analysis of tumor samples in the future will certainly contribute to better clinical development programs, as well as higher response rates in cancer patients who are administered targeted therapies.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Thanks, Peter, that is very interesting.

    Not enough people realize how important getting those results right really is.

    You may find yourself “failing” a particular therapy, only to find that the reason is because your disease isn't what you think it is.

  • MKirschMD

    Interpreting pathology slides is an art, so I am not surprised about the WSJ piece. Many pathologists routinely have intradepartmental review to maximize the chance of an optimal reading. I suspect that every medical specialty would have analogous results if their performances were scrutinized. Radiologly studies have demonstrated that second readings of films often uncover findings not found initially. Clinicians, like myself, are humans working in a murky arena where there is often no certainty. That's why medicine is aptly regarded an an art.

  • http://www.seefirstblog.com Evan Falchuk

    Great points, Michael. Of course doctors know this – most of the people who pay for doctors to do their work don't. They think it's an assembly-line process and try to design ways to “fix” it that fail to recognize the true nature of medical care.

  • http://medicaid-doctors.blogspot.com Medicaid Doctors

    I'm not finished read this yet, but it's so fabulous 'n I'll back again when I was finished my job :D

  • Leviandy
  • "Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the class room. Let not your conception of manifestations of disease come from work heard in the lecture room or read from the book: see and then research, compare and control. But see first."
    - Sir William Osler, MD
    The Father of Modern Medicine
  • Connect



    BestDoctors.com


    On Twitter


    On Facebook


    Via RSS


    On YouTube


    Subscribe via Email

  • Benefits Package

    BenefitsPackageButton

    Join the best in employer health-benefits blogging!

  • Follow Us on YouTube:

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • Archives