Problematic 'low grade' lesions in lymphoproliferative pathology

Stefan Dojcinov
Stefan Dojcinov

Published: 01.12.2011.

Biochemistry

Volume 28, Issue 2 (2012)

pp. 494-497;

https://doi.org/10.5937/matmed1202494d

Abstract

Pathological diagnosis of lymphoproliferative processes has been associated with a high error rate of 17- 35%, compared to a low diagnostic error incidence of 1-3% in general histopathology. In lymphoma diagnosis, one half of the diagnostic errors result in significant clinical consequences such as delayed or inappropriate therapy, unnecessary treatment, avoidable morbidity and compromised survival.1 Inherent pathological ambiguity of lymphoproliferative processes, interpretational subjectivity, unfamiliarity with diagnostic criteria and novel entities, lack of expert opinion, inappropriate laboratory support and poor clinico-pathological correlation are the main reasons behind most pitfalls in this subspecialty.

References

1.
Lester. The clinical impact of expert pathological review on lymphoma management: a regional experience. Br J Haematol. 2003;463–8.
2.
Es. Centralized review offers promise for the clinician, the pathologist, and the patient with newly diagnosed lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;1398–9.
3.
self-assessment: Lymph node pathology. Current Diagnostic Pathology. 2004;500–10.
4.
Cong P, Teruya-Feldstein J M. In situ localization of follicular lymphoma: description and analysis by laser capture microdissection. Blood. 2002;3376–82.
5.
Eberle F, Pack Sd. Follicular lymphoma in situ: clinical implications and comparisons with partial involvement by follicular lymphoma. Blood. 2011;2976–84.

Citation

Copyright

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Partners