Parkash, Vinita

Context.— In 2016, the College of American Pathologists published an evidence-based guideline to develop recommendations for interpretive diagnostic error reduction in anatomic pathology. New evidence, together with evolving practice environments and the continued adoption of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, has prompted a review of the guideline. Objective.— To assess evidence published since the release of the original guideline and update evidence-based recommendations for the reduction of diagnostic errors. Design.— The College of American Pathologists, in collaboration with the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Subspecialty Pathology, convened a panel of experts to update the 2016 evidence-based guideline. A systematic literature review was conducted to address 4 key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments as defined in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results.— Two strong recommendations and 4 good practice statements were established for the reduction of diagnostic error. Conclusions.— The expert panel recommends that anatomic pathologists implement procedures for the review of pathology cases to detect and correct potential interpretive errors to improve patient outcomes.

A repeat survey of the Association of the Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, done 10 years after the original was used to assess trends and variability in classifying scenarios as errors, and the preferred post signout report modification for correcting error by the membership of the Association of the Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. The results were analyzed to inform on whether interpretive amendment rates might act as surrogate measures of interpretive error in pathology. An analyses of the responses indicated that primary level misinterpretations (benign to malignant and vice versa) were universally qualified as error; secondary-level misinterpretations or misclassifications were inconsistently labeled error. There was added variability in the preferred post signout report modification used to correct report alterations. The classification of a scenario as error appeared to correlate with severity of potential harm of the missed call, the perceived subjectivity of the diagnosis, and ambiguity of reporting terminology. Substantial differences in policies for error detection and optimal reporting format were documented between departments. In conclusion, the inconsistency in labeling scenarios as error, disagreement about the optimal post signout report modification for the correction of the error, and variability in error detection policies preclude the use of the misinterpretation amendment rate as a surrogate measure for error in anatomic pathology. There is little change in uniformity of definition, attitudes and perception of interpretive error in anatomic pathology in the last 10 years.

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BI-ALCL) is a rare T-cell lymphoma that arises around breast implants. Most patients manifest with periprosthetic effusion, whereas a subset of patients develops a tumor mass or lymph node involvement (LNI). The aim of this study is to describe the pathologic features of lymph nodes from patients with BI-ALCL and assess the prognostic impact of LNI. Clinical findings and histopathologic features of lymph nodes were assessed in 70 patients with BI-ALCL. LNI was defined by the histologic demonstration of ALCL in lymph nodes. Fourteen (20%) patients with BI-ALCL had LNI, all lymph nodes involved were regional, the most frequent were axillary (93%). The pattern of involvement was sinusoidal in 13 (92.9%) cases, often associated with perifollicular, interfollicular, and diffuse patterns. Two cases had Hodgkin-like patterns. The 5-year overall survival was 75% for patients with LNI and 97.9% for patients without LNI at presentation (P=0.003). Six of 49 (12.2%) of patients with tumor confined by the capsule had LNI, compared with LNI in 8/21 (38%) patients with tumor beyond the capsule. Most patients with LNI achieved complete remission after various therapeutic approaches. Two of 14 (14.3%) patients with LNI died of disease compared with 0/56 (0%) patients without LNI. Twenty percent of patients with BI-ALCL had LNI by lymphoma, most often in a sinusoidal pattern. We conclude that BI-ALCL beyond capsule is associated with a higher risk of LNI. Involvement of lymph nodes was associated with decreased overall survival. Misdiagnosis as Hodgkin lymphoma is a pitfall.