SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Consultations in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993; 17: 743-745.
  • 2
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomic pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991; 15: 1007-1009.
  • 3
    Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999; 86: 2426-2435.
  • 4
    Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996; 20: 851-857.
  • 5
    Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24: 280-284.
  • 6
    Parker-Pope T. Risk of error may justify second opinion on pathology reports. Wall Street Journal. April 13, 2001: 1.
  • 7
    Frable WF. Surgical pathology—second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 620-625.
  • 8
    Parker-Pope T. Why it's hard to get a second opinion (and how to make sure you get one). Wall Street Journal. February 1, 2005: 1.
  • 9
    Tarkan L. Value of second opinions is underscored in study of biopsies [Health Section]. New York Times. April 4, 2000: D7 20.
  • 10
    Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995; 119: 514-517.
  • 11
    Manion E, Cohen MB, Weydert J. Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: clinical consequences of major disagreements. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32: 732-737.
  • 12
    Ackerman AB. Discordance among expert pathologists in diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 1996; 27: 1115-1116.
  • 13
    Arbiser ZK, Folpe AL, Weiss SW. Consultative (expert) second opinions in soft tissue pathology. Analysis of problem-prone diagnostic situations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 116: 473-476.
  • 14
    Hahm GK, Niemann TH, Lucas JG, et al. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001; 125: 736-739.
  • 15
    Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology. I. Cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998; 17: 36-41.
  • 16
    Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, et al. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology. II. Endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998; 17: 42-45.
  • 17
    Khalifa MA, Dodge J, Covens A, et al. Slide review in gynecologic oncology ensures completeness of reporting and diagnostic accuracy. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 90: 425-430.
  • 18
    Chafe S, Honore L, Pearcey R, et al. An analysis of the impact of pathology review in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 48: 1433-1438.
  • 19
    McGowan L, Norris HJ. The mistaken diagnosis of carcinoma of the ovary. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991; 173: 211-215.
  • 20
    Selman AE, Niemann TH, Fowler JM, et al. Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 94(1 suppl): 302-306.
  • 21
    Inouye L, Langford LA, Fuller GN, Bruner JM. Diagnostic discrepancies in a neuropathology consultation practice: 500 consecutive cases. Mod Pathol. 1996; 9(1 Suppl): 165A.
  • 22
    Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, Langford LA. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997; 79: 796-803.
  • 23
    LaCasce AS, Kho ME, Friedberg JW, et al. Comparison of referring and final pathology for patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 1-6.
  • 24
    Wurzer JC, Al-Saleem TI, Hanlon AL, et al. Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer. 1998; 83: 753-759.
  • 25
    Layfield LJ, Jones C, Rowe L, et al. Institutional review of outside cytology materials: a retrospective analysis of 2 institutions' experiences. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002; 26: 45-48.
  • 26
    Baloch ZW, Hendreen S, Gupta PK. Interinstitutional review of thyroid fine-needle aspirations: impact on clinical management of thyroid nodules. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001; 25: 231-234.
  • 27
    Lueck N, Jensen CS, Cohen MB, et al. Mandatory second opinion in cytopathology referral material [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2008; 21(1 suppl): 356A.
  • 28
    KohnLT, CorriganJM, DonaldsonMS, eds. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
  • 29
    Tomaszewski JE, Bear HD, Connally JA, et al. Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Who, what, and when. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000; 114: 329-335.
  • 30
    Baloch ZW, LiVolsi VA, Asa SL, et al. Diagnostic terminology and morphologic criteria for cytologic diagnosis of thyroid lesions: a synopsis of the National Cancer Institute thyroid fine-needle aspiration state of the science conference. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008; 36: 425-437.
  • 31
    Sirota RL. Defining error in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 604-606.
  • 32
    Murphy WM, Rivera-Ramirez I, Luciani LG, Wajsman Z. Second opinion of anatomical pathology: a complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong. J Urol. 2001; 165( 6 pt 1): 1957-1959.
  • 33
    Foucar E. Error in anatomic pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 116( suppl): S34-S46.
  • 34
    Boiko PE, Piepkorn MW. Reliability of skin biopsy pathology. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1994; 7: 371-374.