Gross examination and reporting of soft tissue tumours: evaluation of compliance with the UK Royal College of Pathologists soft tissue sarcoma dataset.

AIMS: Soft tissue tumours are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that can arise at almost every anatomical site. As they often show similar clinical and radiological findings, histology is the definitive diagnostic method and it is crucial that the surgical pathology report contains accurate, useful information for management and prognostication. The soft tissue sarcoma minimum dataset produced by the Royal College of Pathologists in the UK outlines a structure for handling and reporting soft tissue tumours, including the core data required, and aiding pathologists in forming a consistent reporting approach. METHODS: We assessed the information in surgical pathology reports for soft tissue lesions at a tertiary soft tissue centre, in 1 year prior to the development of this dataset, and 1 year after its release, to audit the comparative adequacy of macroscopic and microscopic information provided, and to assess for differences in reporting since the advent of routine ancillary molecular diagnostic testing. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We found that while essential information was always included in reports, more specific details contributing to better quality reports such as more detailed macroscopic descriptions and a higher proportion of clinical summaries with radiological correlation were included in 2011 than 2006, despite increasing workload. Specimen handling, particularly of core biopsies, was also improved, reflecting the increasing need to conserve the maximum amount of patient material for molecular investigations.

Histopathological diagnostic discrepancies in soft tissue tumours referred to a specialist centre: reassessment in the era of ancillary molecular diagnosis.

Introduction. Soft tissue tumour pathology is a highly specialised area of surgical pathology, but soft tissue neoplasms can occur at virtually all sites and are therefore encountered by a wide population of surgical pathologists. Potential sarcomas require referral to specialist centres for review by pathologists who see a large number of soft tissue lesions and where appropriate ancillary investigations can be performed. We have previously assessed the types of diagnostic discrepancies between referring and final diagnosis for soft tissue lesions referred to our tertiary centre. We now reaudit this 6 years later, assessing changes in discrepancy patterns, particularly in relation to the now widespread use of ancillary molecular diagnostic techniques which were not prevalent in our original study. Materials and Methods. We compared the sarcoma unit's histopathology reports with referring reports on 348 specimens from 286 patients with suspected or proven soft tissue tumours in a one-year period. Results. Diagnostic agreement was seen in 250 cases (71.8%), with 57 (16.4%) major and 41 (11.8%) minor discrepancies. There were 23 cases of benign/malignant discrepancies (23.5% of all discrepancies). 50 ancillary molecular tests were performed, 33 for aiding diagnosis and 17 mutational analyses for gastrointestinal stromal tumour to guide therapy. Findings from ancillary techniques contributed to 3 major and 4 minor discrepancies. While the results were broadly similar to those of the previous study, there was an increase in frequency of major discrepancies. Conclusion. Six years following our previous study and notably now in an era of widespread ancillary molecular diagnosis, the overall discrepancy rate between referral and tertiary centre diagnosis remains similar, but there is an increase in frequency of major discrepancies likely to alter patient management. A possible reason for the increase in major discrepancies is the increasing lack of exposure to soft tissue cases in nonspecialist centres in a time of subspecialisation. The findings support the national guidelines in which all suspected soft tissue tumour pathology specimens should be referred to a specialist sarcoma unit.