Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Potential histological discordance revealed by second review in the national rare gynecological cancer network (TMRG).
Henno, S; Jeanne, C; Rouge, T De La Motte; Genestie, C; Treilleux, I; Croce, S; Just, P A; Le Frere-Belda, M A; Guinaudeau, E; Penault-Llorca, F; Arnould, L; Mery-Lamarche, E; Leroux, A; Lemaire, A S; Averous, G; Renaud, O; Charafe-Jauffret, E; Bonneau, C; Leaha, C; Ray-Coquard, I; Devouassoux-Shisheboran, M.
Affiliation
  • Henno S; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, CHU Pontchaillou, Rennes, France. Electronic address: sebastien.henno@chu-rennes.fr.
  • Jeanne C; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France.
  • Rouge TM; Oncologie Médicale, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France.
  • Genestie C; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
  • Treilleux I; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
  • Croce S; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
  • Just PA; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France.
  • Le Frere-Belda MA; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
  • Guinaudeau E; Institut d'Histopathologie - IHP, Nantes, France.
  • Penault-Llorca F; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand.
  • Arnould L; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France.
  • Mery-Lamarche E; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Institut Claudius Rigaud, Toulouse, France.
  • Leroux A; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Institut de cancérologie de Lorraine, Nancy, France.
  • Lemaire AS; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.
  • Averous G; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, CHU, Strasbourg, France.
  • Renaud O; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, CHU, Poitiers, France.
  • Charafe-Jauffret E; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France.
  • Bonneau C; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre hospitalier, Orléans, France.
  • Leaha C; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Centre Val d'Aurelles, Montpellier, France.
  • Ray-Coquard I; Département d'Oncologie, Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France.
  • Devouassoux-Shisheboran M; Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, CHU Lyon Sud & Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Lyon, France.
Gynecol Oncol ; 165(3): 637-641, 2022 06.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35393217
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Since 2010, the network of rare malignant tumors of the ovary (TMRG) was developed to optimize the management of patients, also allowing a histological second opinion of rare ovarian tumors. The aim of this work was to study the contribution of second opinion to improve histological diagnostic accuracy on ovarian rare malignant tumors included in the TMRG database. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

Histological data of patients diagnosed with a rare ovarian tumor included in TMRG network over a one-year period (2018) were collected. Initial diagnoses were compared with second opinion from national gynecological pathologist experts. The modalities of histological second opinion requests were studied, as well as the histological characteristics of the tumors. The discordances were classified as minor (if the modification of histological diagnosis did not change patient management) and major (if the patient management can be modified).

RESULTS:

Of 1185 included patients, 937 matched the inclusion criteria. Full concordance between primary diagnosis and expert second opinion was reached in 611 cases (65,3%), minor discordance was seen in 114 (12,2%) and major discordance in 209 (22,3%) of cases. In systematic review requested by the network, 26% (n = 137) of cases were reported with a change in histological diagnosis, while the change concerned 44% (n = 186) of cases for a second opinion spontaneously requested by the initial pathologist. The discrepancies concerned all categories of ovarian tumors, with a majority of mucinous tumors (43% of major discordances), followed by stromal and sex-cord tumors (13.8% of major discordances) and clear cell tumors (12,4% of major discordances).

CONCLUSION:

This analysis confirms the diagnostic difficulty of ovarian tumors, due to their rarity and morphological heterogeneity. French pathologists are aware of these difficulties and spontaneously refer ovarian tumors with unusual histology for a second opinion and collaborate with rare tumor networks for systematic review.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ovarian Neoplasms / Sex Cord-Gonadal Stromal Tumors Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: Gynecol Oncol Year: 2022 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ovarian Neoplasms / Sex Cord-Gonadal Stromal Tumors Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limits: Female / Humans Language: En Journal: Gynecol Oncol Year: 2022 Document type: Article