Determination of reliability criteria for liver stiffness evaluation by transient elastography.

UNLABELLED: Liver stiffness evaluation (LSE) is usually considered as reliable when it fulfills all the following criteria: ≥10 valid measurements, ≥60% success rate, and interquartile range / median ratio (IQR/M) ≤0.30. However, such reliable LSE have never been shown to be more accurate than unreliable LSE. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the relevance of the usual definition for LSE reliability, and to improve reliability by using diagnostic accuracy as a primary outcome in a large population. 1,165 patients with chronic liver disease from 19 French centers were included. All patients had liver biopsy and LSE. 75.7% of LSE were reliable according to the usual definition. However, these reliable LSE were not significantly more accurate than unreliable LSE with, respectively: 85.8% versus 81.5% well-classified patients for the diagnosis of cirrhosis (P = 0.082). In multivariate analyses with different diagnostic targets, LSE median and IQR/M were independent predictors of fibrosis staging, with no significant influence of ≥10 valid measurements or LSE success rate. These two reliability criteria determined three LSE groups: "very reliable" (IQR/M ≤0.10), "reliable" (0.10< IQR/M ≤0.30, or IQR/M >0.30 with LSE median <7.1 kPa), and "poorly reliable" (IQR/M >0.30 with LSE median ≥7.1 kPa). The rates of well-classified patients for the diagnosis of cirrhosis were, respectively: 90.4%, 85.8%, and 69.5% (P < 10(-3) ). According to these new reliability criteria, 9.1% of LSE were poorly reliable (versus 24.3% unreliable LSE with the usual definition, P < 10(-3) ), 74.3% were reliable, and 16.6% were very reliable. CONCLUSION: The usual definition for LSE reliability is not relevant. LSE reliability depends on IQR/M according to liver stiffness median level, defining thus three reliability categories: very reliable, reliable, and poorly reliable LSE. (HEPATOLOGY 2013).

[KRAS analysis management: Process and delays]. / Prise en charge d'une analyse KRAS : processus et délais.

INTRODUCTION: The prescription of some anti-cancer therapies is now based on the detection of specific genetic alterations that should be determined as early as possible not to put patients at a disadvantage. In 2009, the 'Aquitaine platform of molecular tumour genetics' (PGMC) developed a programme to evaluate and to improve the organisation of molecular cancer analyses, particularly the analysis of the KRAS gene. The objective was to describe the analysis process, the organization of pathology laboratories and the delays between the different phases of the process. METHODS: We established a working group to describe the different steps between the prescription of molecular biology analyses and the analysis report. A retrospective study based on the first quarter of 2009 allowed us to measure management delays. In addition, a pathology laboratory organisational questionnaire allowed us to identify organisational features hindering rapid delivery. RESULTS: The median delay between the analysis prescription and the results was 15 days (range: 7-78 days). Practices explaining longer delays were highlighted not only in the pathology laboratories (for example, pending of the prescription before sending the analysis, waiting for several cases before sending the material, sample slicing, sending by standard mail), but also within the PGMC (for example, sample testing by another technique or new extraction for non-contributory samples). CONCLUSION: The results of this study emphasise the necessity of speeding up pre-analytical phases, and of creating an electronic procedure and regional facilities in order to provide results more rapidly to clinicians.

[Impact of pathological review by an expert on the diagnosis and management of patients with cancer in Aquitania]. / Impacts des avis diagnostiques de cancérologie en Aquitaine. Etude quantitative, qualitative et médicoéconomique rétrospective sur une année.

AIMS: The goal of this work was to evaluate the impact of expert pathological second opinion on the diagnosis and management of patients with cancer, in a French region (Aquitaine) and with an economic point of view. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was first quantitative, performed retrospectively on all cases of cancer, voluntary sent for a second opinion to an expert pathologist of two centers. Secondly, we restricted the study to lymphoid, melanocytic and soft tissue tumors sent for second opinion. We considered that the expert review had an important diagnostic impact either when the initial pathologist sent the specimen to identify or classify malignant tumor or hesitated between benign and malignant tumor or had no hypothesis, or if there were discordant diagnoses (malignant/benign) between the two pathologists. We considered that the expert review had a high therapeutic impact if the disagreement between initial and expert diagnoses induced a complete modification in therapy. We evaluated the cost of second opinion for the expert centers and the cost of care management. RESULTS: Over the year 2006, the expert centers received 5077 lesions for consultation: 3769 specimens were sent by a pathologist for a second review, 1324 by pathologists of Aquitania and of these, 751 samples were submitted for lymphoid (55%), soft tissues (30%) or melanocytic tumors (15%). There was an important diagnostic impact for 75% of the samples; the impact of the expert review on patient management was considered high for 46% of specimens and the expert pathological diagnosis modified the clinical prognosis for 40% of the specimens. We estimated that for 53 discordant diagnoses (malignant/benign), second opinion allowed an economy of 500,000 euro. CONCLUSION: Expert second opinion is very important not only for diagnosis and management for patient with cancer but also for economic reasons.