The role of multidisciplinary team meeting histopathology review and its impact on revised reports: Analysis of a national quality improvement program.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted the first Irish national study assessing the value of multidisciplinary team meeting review in pathology practice and its impact on error detection before treatment. METHODS: Public and private pathology laboratories across Ireland capture their quality activities using standardized codes and submit their data to a centralized database (National Quality Assurance Intelligence System) overseen by the National Histopathology Quality Improvement (NHQI) program. A total of 1,437,746 histopathology and cytopathology cases submitted to the NHQI program over a 60-month period (January 2017 to December 2021) were included in this study. Cases were analyzed with respect to multidisciplinary team meeting peer review and the presence of a revised report (amended or corrected report), a surrogate marker for error detection before treatment. RESULTS: Across all cases assessed, 13.74% (197,587) underwent multidisciplinary team meeting discussion. Cases discussed at review had a statistically significantly higher rate of revised reports (1.25% [2470]) than cases not discussed at review (0.16% [1959]) (Pearson χ2, 6619.26; P < .0001; odds ratio, 8.00 [95% CI, 7.54-8.49]). Overall, multidisciplinary team meeting review made it 8 times more likely to detect an error before treatment. Cancer resections had the highest rate of review at 55.29% (46,806), reflecting the prioritization of oncology case discussion at review meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary team meeting review process plays a valuable role in pathology error detection. A pathologist's participation in the review process comes with a clinically significant workload that needs to be recognized for future workforce planning. This study highlighted the positive role pathologists play in enhancing patient safety.

The strategic use of biopsy in the diagnosis of coeliac disease in adults.

BACKGROUND: The paediatric guidelines support the use of the 'No Biopsy Approach' in the diagnosis of coeliac disease (CD). We aimed to determine the correlation between anti tissue transglutaminase (anti-TTG serology) ≥10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), using the Celikey ® ELiA assay and histological findings. Our secondary aim was to determine the safety of this approach in our centre. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult patients referred to a tertiary referral centre with raised anti-TTG titres and/or histological changes of coeliac on D2 biopsies between 2014 - 2019. Excluded patients were those who did not have a biopsy performed, or whose biopsy was unavailable for review, selective IgA deficiency, and gluten elimination prior to biopsy. Biopsies were classified according to Marsh, by two independent pathologists, blinded to the anti-TTG titre. RESULTS: 164 patients had positive anti-TTG serology and duodenal biopsy in our centre prior to starting a gluten free diet (GFD) in the period 2014 - 2019. Of these 164 patients (median age 40yrs, 62% female), 68 (33%) had an anti-TTG titre ≥10 x ULN, 99% of which had a Marsh grading ≥ 3 and 1% had a Marsh of 2 on biopsy. 91% had either a normal index gastroscopy or findings of mild gastritis/oesophagitis. CONCLUSIONS: We found a 98.5% positive predictive value (PPV) of determining CD (i.e., Marsh ≥ 3) in those with an anti-TTG ≥10 x ULN. In those with moderate to high-risk clinical suspicion of CD we propose that duodenal biopsy is unnecessary for diagnosis.

A methodological approach to intra-action reviews - application and adaptation of existing global guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic response in Ireland, 2021.

Many countries were under-prepared for the arrival of an emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. An intra-action review allows countries, systems and services to reflect on their preparedness and response to date, and revise their policies and approaches as needed. We describe the approach to undertaking an intra-action review of Ireland's Health Protection COVID-19 response during 2021. A project team within National Health Protection developed a project plan, identified key stakeholders, trained facilitators and designed workshop programmes, employing integrated collaborative web tools. Multidisciplinary representatives participated in three half-day, independently facilitated workshops on challenges and solutions within specific response areas: communication, governance and cross-cutting themes such as staff well-being. An all-stakeholder survey sought further in-depth detail. Participants reviewed the ongoing pandemic response in terms of good practice and challenges and recommended implementable solutions. We customised our mixed-methods approach using existing ECDC/WHO guidance, producing consensus recommendations during Ireland's fourth wave of COVID-19, with particular focus on pathways to implementation. Our adaptations may help others in formulating and customising methodological approaches. During an emergency, identifying and reflecting on good practices to retain, and areas for strengthening, with a clear action plan of implementing recommendations, will enhance preparedness now, and for future emergencies.

Impact of COVID-19 on small biopsy diagnostic procedures and cancer resection surgeries in the North-West of Ireland.

AIMS: To quantify the impact of COVID-19 on small biopsy procedures and cancer resection surgeries in the North-West of Ireland. METHODS: Data was obtained from the Histopathology Departments of University Hospital Galway (UHG) and Letterkenny University Hospital (LUH) Laboratory Information Systems to establish the impact of COVID-19 on both the small biopsy (coded P01) and cancer resection (coded P03) caseloads reported from January to June 2020, with comparison made to January to June 2019. RESULTS: From January to June 2020 compared with January to June 2019, UHG had an overall decrease of 714 P01 cases (21.5%) and a decrease of 152 P03 cases (14.4%). In this time, LUH had an increase of 9 P01 cases (0.8%) but a decrease of 48 P03 cases (58.5%). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant impact on the provision of both diagnostic and therapeutic services in North-West of Ireland due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Implications of a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) on prostate biopsy: a 5-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: In the era of active surveillance of low- and intermediate-risk prostatic cancer, a reconsideration of the implications of a biopsy report of ASAP and/or HGPIN may be timely. AIMS: We investigated the implications of a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) on prostate biopsy. METHODS: The rate of re-biopsy and the incidence of carcinoma on repeat biopsy for benign, HGPIN, and ASAP groups were compared. Mean PSA and PSA velocity was also compared between groups. RESULTS: There was an increased risk of developing prostate cancer in the following 5 years with a biopsy diagnosis of ASAP compared to benign (20% vs 5.9%, p = 0.009), and with a biopsy of HGPIN compared with benign (14.8% vs 5.9%, p = 0.005). The frequency of repeat biopsy following a diagnosis of ASAP (54.2%) vs. HGPIN (37%) was not significantly different (p = 0.079). The risk of developing prostate cancer was highest following a biopsy with concomitant ASAP and HGPIN compared to benign (50% vs 5.9%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in PSA values between the 3 diagnostic groups at the time of initial biopsy (p = 0.206). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that a biopsy diagnosis of ASAP ± HGPIN, on either initial or surveillance biopsy, provides support for earlier repeat mpMRI and/or re-biopsy. This may assist in directing to early re-biopsy those patients likely to have intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.