A rosszindulatú daganatok klinikai és patológiai diagnózisa közti eltérések

Translated title of the contribution: Discrepancies between the clinical and pathological diagnoses in cases of malignant tumour

Attila Kovács, G. Illyés, Tibor Schönfeld, Z. Schaff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

INTRODUCTION - In Hungary, like in other countries, previously undiagnosed diseases are frequently discovered at autopsies despite the availability of modern diagnostic tools. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnosis in malignant tumour cases. METHODS - Between 1996 and 2006, 5005 autopsies were performed in our institute. Malignant tumour cases with differing clinical and pathological diagnoses were selected and revised with regard to the localization of the primary tumour and the type of diagnostic difference, i.e., false negative, false positive or difference in the tumour site. The proportion of tumours with clinically undetermined primary site that were subsequently recognized at autopsy was established. The causes of misdiagnoses and the appropriateness of therapy were also analysed with regard to whether diagnostic mistakes were made and whether these significantly affected disease outcome. RESULTS - Of 1495 autopsies 235 cases (16%) showed a difference between the clinical and the pathological tumour diagnosis and a further 74 cases (5%) had a clinically undetermined primary tumour. Of the misdiagnosed cases 57% were false negative, 23% were false positive and 20% differed in their localization. Autopsy clarified 75% of the clinically undetermined primary tumours. Overall, there was one misdiagnosis or undetermined primary localization for every 5 correct clinical diagnoses (309/1495, 21%). The most frequent misdiagnosed tumours were lung, liver and kidney cancers. Most (60%) misdiagnoses were due to factors independent from the clinician, so these in fact were not diagnostic errors. Out of the remaining 40%, the true diagnostic error had an adverse effect on disease outcome in 11%. CONCLUSION - Despite of the use of modern diagnostic tools the rate of clinically misdiagnosed malignant tumours is high, therefore, autopsy will still play an outstanding role in the future in quality control of clinical activity and education.

Original languageHungarian
Pages (from-to)1069-1074
Number of pages6
JournalLege Artis Medicinae
Volume16
Issue number12
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Diagnostic Errors
Autopsy
Neoplasms
Hungary
Kidney Neoplasms
Liver Neoplasms
Quality Control
Lung Neoplasms
Education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A rosszindulatú daganatok klinikai és patológiai diagnózisa közti eltérések. / Kovács, Attila; Illyés, G.; Schönfeld, Tibor; Schaff, Z.

In: Lege Artis Medicinae, Vol. 16, No. 12, 12.2006, p. 1069-1074.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{073d0881620a415795dfc70367239625,
title = "A rosszindulat{\'u} daganatok klinikai {\'e}s patol{\'o}giai diagn{\'o}zisa k{\"o}zti elt{\'e}r{\'e}sek",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION - In Hungary, like in other countries, previously undiagnosed diseases are frequently discovered at autopsies despite the availability of modern diagnostic tools. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnosis in malignant tumour cases. METHODS - Between 1996 and 2006, 5005 autopsies were performed in our institute. Malignant tumour cases with differing clinical and pathological diagnoses were selected and revised with regard to the localization of the primary tumour and the type of diagnostic difference, i.e., false negative, false positive or difference in the tumour site. The proportion of tumours with clinically undetermined primary site that were subsequently recognized at autopsy was established. The causes of misdiagnoses and the appropriateness of therapy were also analysed with regard to whether diagnostic mistakes were made and whether these significantly affected disease outcome. RESULTS - Of 1495 autopsies 235 cases (16{\%}) showed a difference between the clinical and the pathological tumour diagnosis and a further 74 cases (5{\%}) had a clinically undetermined primary tumour. Of the misdiagnosed cases 57{\%} were false negative, 23{\%} were false positive and 20{\%} differed in their localization. Autopsy clarified 75{\%} of the clinically undetermined primary tumours. Overall, there was one misdiagnosis or undetermined primary localization for every 5 correct clinical diagnoses (309/1495, 21{\%}). The most frequent misdiagnosed tumours were lung, liver and kidney cancers. Most (60{\%}) misdiagnoses were due to factors independent from the clinician, so these in fact were not diagnostic errors. Out of the remaining 40{\%}, the true diagnostic error had an adverse effect on disease outcome in 11{\%}. CONCLUSION - Despite of the use of modern diagnostic tools the rate of clinically misdiagnosed malignant tumours is high, therefore, autopsy will still play an outstanding role in the future in quality control of clinical activity and education.",
keywords = "Autopsy, Malignant tumour, Misdiagnosis",
author = "Attila Kov{\'a}cs and G. Illy{\'e}s and Tibor Sch{\"o}nfeld and Z. Schaff",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
language = "Hungarian",
volume = "16",
pages = "1069--1074",
journal = "Lege Artis Medicinae",
issn = "0866-4811",
publisher = "Literatura Medica Publishing House",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A rosszindulatú daganatok klinikai és patológiai diagnózisa közti eltérések

AU - Kovács, Attila

AU - Illyés, G.

AU - Schönfeld, Tibor

AU - Schaff, Z.

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - INTRODUCTION - In Hungary, like in other countries, previously undiagnosed diseases are frequently discovered at autopsies despite the availability of modern diagnostic tools. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnosis in malignant tumour cases. METHODS - Between 1996 and 2006, 5005 autopsies were performed in our institute. Malignant tumour cases with differing clinical and pathological diagnoses were selected and revised with regard to the localization of the primary tumour and the type of diagnostic difference, i.e., false negative, false positive or difference in the tumour site. The proportion of tumours with clinically undetermined primary site that were subsequently recognized at autopsy was established. The causes of misdiagnoses and the appropriateness of therapy were also analysed with regard to whether diagnostic mistakes were made and whether these significantly affected disease outcome. RESULTS - Of 1495 autopsies 235 cases (16%) showed a difference between the clinical and the pathological tumour diagnosis and a further 74 cases (5%) had a clinically undetermined primary tumour. Of the misdiagnosed cases 57% were false negative, 23% were false positive and 20% differed in their localization. Autopsy clarified 75% of the clinically undetermined primary tumours. Overall, there was one misdiagnosis or undetermined primary localization for every 5 correct clinical diagnoses (309/1495, 21%). The most frequent misdiagnosed tumours were lung, liver and kidney cancers. Most (60%) misdiagnoses were due to factors independent from the clinician, so these in fact were not diagnostic errors. Out of the remaining 40%, the true diagnostic error had an adverse effect on disease outcome in 11%. CONCLUSION - Despite of the use of modern diagnostic tools the rate of clinically misdiagnosed malignant tumours is high, therefore, autopsy will still play an outstanding role in the future in quality control of clinical activity and education.

AB - INTRODUCTION - In Hungary, like in other countries, previously undiagnosed diseases are frequently discovered at autopsies despite the availability of modern diagnostic tools. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnosis in malignant tumour cases. METHODS - Between 1996 and 2006, 5005 autopsies were performed in our institute. Malignant tumour cases with differing clinical and pathological diagnoses were selected and revised with regard to the localization of the primary tumour and the type of diagnostic difference, i.e., false negative, false positive or difference in the tumour site. The proportion of tumours with clinically undetermined primary site that were subsequently recognized at autopsy was established. The causes of misdiagnoses and the appropriateness of therapy were also analysed with regard to whether diagnostic mistakes were made and whether these significantly affected disease outcome. RESULTS - Of 1495 autopsies 235 cases (16%) showed a difference between the clinical and the pathological tumour diagnosis and a further 74 cases (5%) had a clinically undetermined primary tumour. Of the misdiagnosed cases 57% were false negative, 23% were false positive and 20% differed in their localization. Autopsy clarified 75% of the clinically undetermined primary tumours. Overall, there was one misdiagnosis or undetermined primary localization for every 5 correct clinical diagnoses (309/1495, 21%). The most frequent misdiagnosed tumours were lung, liver and kidney cancers. Most (60%) misdiagnoses were due to factors independent from the clinician, so these in fact were not diagnostic errors. Out of the remaining 40%, the true diagnostic error had an adverse effect on disease outcome in 11%. CONCLUSION - Despite of the use of modern diagnostic tools the rate of clinically misdiagnosed malignant tumours is high, therefore, autopsy will still play an outstanding role in the future in quality control of clinical activity and education.

KW - Autopsy

KW - Malignant tumour

KW - Misdiagnosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845873287&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845873287&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33845873287

VL - 16

SP - 1069

EP - 1074

JO - Lege Artis Medicinae

JF - Lege Artis Medicinae

SN - 0866-4811

IS - 12

ER -