The impact of clinically significant discrepancies from primary pathological review of transurethral bladder resection specimens upon repeat review at a tertiary care center.
4552 Background: Internal review of outside pathology slides is a common practice among urologic oncologists at tertiary care facilities, and discrepancies have a potential to directly affect the choice of treatment. While repeat prostate biopsy review has been extensively studied, there is little data available on the impact of repeat reviews of bladder biopsies. The purpose of the current study is to perform a standardized comparison of original and internal pathology reviews of identical bladder specimens to characterize the impact of repeat review on treatment decisions. Methods: Using the Columbia Urologic Oncology Database, a retrospective analysis of 91 consecutive patients who underwent bladder resections at outside institutions from 2008-2012 with secondary referral to a single urologist and internal review at our institution was conducted. Characteristics of both original pathology reports and internal reviews were collected and compared by blinded reviewers. A discrepancy in one of the following characteristics was considered treatment-altering: presence of muscularis in specimen or tumor involvement in muscularis. Additional clinically-significant discrepancies including presence of secondary histology, carcinoma in situ, lymphovascular invasion, micropapillary features, tumor stage, and overall accumulative discrepancy rate were also analyzed. Results: Median time from original procedure to internal review was 34 days (range: 9-368). 56/91 (62%) patients had at least one of the predefined clinically-significant discrepancies. 27/91 (30%) patients had at least one treatment-altering discrepancy, including 25 with discrepant muscle in specimen and 11 with discrepant muscle invasion. Regarding tumor stage, 8 patients were upstaged, 71 were unchanged, and 12 were downstaged on internal review. Conclusions: Repeat pathologic review of primary bladder specimens at a tertiary care center has the potential to alter clinical care for the majority of patients. Further studies are needed to determine if these discrepancies and the decisions they influence have a significant impact on patient outcomes.