1471-0528/asset/BJO_left.gif?v=1&s=0fb87361cdb6be25fdf05019eed6d47f5143f610)
1471-0528/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=3892ef16ff18d6834c302faf85268a49f5fc588f)
DISCREPANCIES IN THE HISTOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF HYDATIDIFORM MOLE
Article first published online: 23 AUG 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1979.tb10793.x
Issue
1471-0528/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=b4e1d96c46e18c61210d584b63c13ee375cf562b "BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology")
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 86, Issue 6, pages 480–483, June 1979
Additional Information
How to Cite
Javey, H., Borazjani, G., Behmard, S. and Langley, F. A. (1979), DISCREPANCIES IN THE HISTOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OF HYDATIDIFORM MOLE. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 86: 480–483. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1979.tb10793.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 23 AUG 2005
- Article first published online: 23 AUG 2005
- Abstract
- References
- Cited By
Summary
Sections of tissue from 256 patients on which a histological diagnosis of hydatidiform mole had been made were reviewed by a visiting pathologist. There was agreement between the reporting pathologists and the visiting pathologist in only 55.1 per cent of cases, a less severe diagnosis was made by the visiting pathologist in 42.2 per cent of cases. The disagreement was as high as 66.6 per cent with pathologists who rarely worked in the gynaecological field. This study casts serious doubt on the consistency of the histological diagnosis of hydatidiform mole made in any one laboratory and between different laboratories. It is suggested that in epidemiological studies the diagnosis should be made by a panel of pathologists using strict histological criteria and in an individual laboratory diagnosis should be made or confirmed by a pathologist experienced in gynaecological pathology.