Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of MedicineProblems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of Medicine0869-866X2412-2106Joint-Stock Company Chicot143210.32687/0869-866X-2024-32-1-52-60НеопределенThe errors in intravital pathologicoanatomic diagnostic: a publications reviewZhuravliovAliaksandr Sergeevichzhuravlev@unim.suGenisMikhail Yurievichgenis@unim.suVasilevaAnna Sergeevnadzhillo@gmail.comVasyukovaOlesya Alexandrovnao.vas.93@gmail.comTursunovIbragim Ismoilzhonovichtursunov.ib@gmail.comPetropavlovskyMikhail Mikhailovichpetropavlovskiymm@gmail.comTaranenkoDmitry Viatcheslavovichlissander40011@gmail.comKarvetskayaVarvara Ilyinichnavikarvetskaya@mail.ruKryatovaAlexandra Aleekseevnakryatova@unim.suLymishchenkoValeriia Dmitrievnalymishchenko@gmail.comRazhbadinovaNapisat Shamkhalovnannnnapi@gmail.comThe Society with Limited Liability “YUNIM”, 101000, Moscow, RussiaThe Autonomous Institution “The Republican Clinical Oncologic Dispensary” of the Minzdrav of Chuvashia, 428020, Cheboksary, RussiaThe Academician A. P. Avcyn Research Institute of Human Morphology of The Federal State Research Institution “The Academician B. V. Petrovsky Russian National Center of Surgery”, 117418, Moscow, RussiaThe State Budget Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “The A. E. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry” of Minzdrav of Russia, 127473, Moscow, RussiaThe Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technologies Territory of Innovation Center “Skolkovo”, 121205, Moscow, Russia110220243211904202519042025Copyright © 2025,2025<p>The review presents analysis of scientific publications considering medical errors in intravital pathologicoanatomic diagnostic. The examples of classification, rate of diagnostic errors and possible ways of decreasing the number of diagnostic errors in pathological anatomy are considered.</p>errorsurgical pathologysecond opinionquality controlreviewошибкапатологическая анатомиявторое мнениеконтроль качестваобзор[Dolzhenko R. A. Essence and evaluation of optimizational technologies “lean” and “six sigma”. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya “Ekonomika” = Herald of Omsk University. Series «Economics». 2014;(1):25–33. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/suschnost-i-otsenka-effektivnosti-ispolzovaniya-optimizatsionnyh-tehnologiy-lin-i-shest-sigm/viewer (accessed 22.04.2023) (in Russian).][Mishnev O. D. The main ethical and deontological problems of pathological anatomy. Medicinskoe pravo i etika. 2002;(4):101–28 (in Russian).][Davydovskiy I. V. Clinical and anatomical conferences, their place and importance in the hospital work system. Arkhiv patologii. 1935;(3):3 (in Russian).][Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Kohn L. T., Corrigan J. M., Donaldson M. S. (eds). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. doi: 10.17226/9728][Nakhleh R. E. What is quality in surgical pathology? J. Clin. Pathol. 2006;59(7):669–72. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2005.031385][Nakhleh R. E., Zarbo R. J. Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 1,004,115 cases from 417 institutions. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 1996;120:227–33.][Nakhleh R. E., Gephardt G., Zarbo R. J. Necessity of clinical information in surgical pathology. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 1999;123(7):615–9. doi: 10.5858/1999-123-0615-NOCIIS][Whitehead M. E., Fitzwater J. E., Lindley S. K., Kern S. B., Ulirsch R. C., Winecoff W. F. 3rd. Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnoses: a prospective audit of three thousand cases. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1984 Apr;81(4):487–91. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/81.4.487][Ahmad Z., Idrees R., Uddin N., Ahmed A., Fatima S. Errors in Surgical Pathology Reports: a Study from a Major Center in Pakistan. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2016;17(4):1869–74. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2016.17.4.1869][Nakhleh R. E., Zarbo R. J. Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error detection and avoidance: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 1,667,547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.1998;122(4):303–9.][Saposnik G., Redelmeier D., Ruff C. C., Tobler P. N. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med. Inform. Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):138. Published 2016 Nov 3. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1][Troxel D. B., Sabella J. D. Problem areas in pathology practice. Uncovered by a review of malpractice claims. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1994;18(8):821–31. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199408000-00009][Frable W. J. Surgical pathology — second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? Error or diagnostic variation? Arch. Pathol. Lab Med. 2006 May;130(5):620–5. doi: 10.5858/2006-130-620-SPRIRA][Coffin C. M. Pediatric surgical pathology: pitfalls and strategies for error prevention. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006 May;130(5):610–2. doi: 10.5858/2006-130-610-PSPPAS][Cooper K. Errors and error rates in surgical pathology: an Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology survey. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006;130(5):607–9. doi: 10.5858/2006-130-607-EAERIS][Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomic pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1991;15(10):1007–9. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199110000-00012][Foucar E. Classification of error in anatomic pathology: a proposal for an evidence-based standard. Semin. Diagn. Pathol. 2005;22(2):139–46. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2006.02.001][Bruner J. M., Inouye L., Fuller G. N., Langford L. A. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997;79(4):796–803. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19970215)79:4<796::aid-cncr17>3.0.co;2-v][Chan Y. M., Cheung A. N., Cheng D. K., Ng T. Y., Ngan H. Y., Wong L. C. Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology: routine or selective? Gynecol. Oncol. 1999;75:267–71. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5567][Safrin R. E., Bark C. J. Surgical pathology sign-out. Routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1993 Nov;17(11):1190–2.][Ramsay A. D., Gallagher P. J. Local audit of surgical pathology. 18 month's experience of peer review-based quality assessment in an English teaching hospital. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1992;16(5):476–82.][Cree I. A., Guthrie W., Anderson J. M., Holley M. P., Hopwood D., Sanders D. S., Parham D. M., Lang S., Lang J., Beck J. S. Departmental audit in histopathology. Pathol. Res. Pract. 1993;189(4):453–7. doi: 10.1016/S0344-0338(11)80335-3][Whitehead M. E., Grieve J. H., Payne M. J., Ross M. S. Quality assurance of histopathologic diagnosis in the British Army: role of the Army Histopathology Registry in completed case review. J. R. Army Med. Corps. 1986;132(2):71–5. doi: 10.1136/jramc-132-02-02][Kissler M. J., Kissler K., Burden M. Toward a Medical «Ecology of Attention». N. Engl. J. Med. 2021;384(4):299–301. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2027190][Macrae C. The problem with incident reporting. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2016;25(2):71–5. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004732][Lind A. C., Bewtra C., Healy J. C., Sims K. L. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1995;104(5):560–6. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/104.5.560][Ruijter E., van Leenders G., Miller G., Debruyne F., van de Kaa C. Errors in histological grading by prostatic needle biopsy specimens: frequency and predisposing factors. J. Pathol. 2000;192(2):229–33. doi: 10.1002/1096-9896(2000)9999:9999<::AID-PATH703>3.0.CO;2-X][Arbiser Z. K., Folpe A. L., Weiss S. W. Consultative (expert) second opinions in soft tissue pathology. Analysis of problem-prone diagnostic situations. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2001;116(4):473–6. doi: 10.1309/425H-NW4W-XC9A-005H][Hocking G. R., Niteckis V. N., Cairns B. J., Hayman J. A. Departmental audit in surgical anatomical pathology. Pathology. 1997 Nov;29(4):418–21. doi: 10.1080/00313029700169435][Kornstein M. J., Byrne S. P. The medicolegal aspect of error in pathology: a search of jury verdicts and settlements. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2007;131(4):615–8. doi: 10.5858/2007-131-615-TMAOEI][Piepkorn M. W., Longton G. M., Reisch L. M., Elder D. E., Pepe M. S., Kerr K. F., Tosteson A. N. A., Nelson H. D., Knezevich S., Radick A., Shucard H., Onega T., Carney P. A., Elmore J. G., Barnhill R. L. Assessment of Second-Opinion Strategies for Diagnoses of Cutaneous Melanocytic Lesions. JAMA Netw. Open. 2019 Oct 2;2(10):e1912597. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12597][Renshaw A. A., Gould E. W. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2006 May;125(5):737–9. doi: 10.1309/6A0R-AX9K-CR8V-WCG4][Renshaw A. A., Cartagena N., Granter S. R., Gould E. W. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology of biopsy material. Am. J. Clin. Pathol.2003;119(6):797–800. doi: 10.1309/DCXA-XFVC-CHVH-YU41][Renshaw A. A., Pinnar N. E., Jiroutek M. R., Young M. L. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2002;126(8):961–3. doi: 10.5858/2002-126-0961-BRAAMF][Abt A. B., Abt L. G., Olt G. J. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 1995;119(6):514–7.][Gupta D., Layfield L. J. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review: a survey of current practice. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2000;24(2):280–4. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200002000-00014][Jacques S. M., Qureshi F., Munkarah A., Lawrence W. D. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology: I. Cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol. 1998;17(1):36–41. doi: 10.1097/00004347-199801000-00007][Epstein J. I., Walsh P. C., Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1996;20(7):851–7. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199607000-00008][Nakhleh R. E. Error reduction in surgical pathology. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2006;130(5):630–2. doi: 10.5858/2006-130-630-ERISP][Schnitt S. J., Connolly J. L., Tavassoli F. A., Fechner R. E., Kempson R. L., Gelman R., Page D. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1992;16(12):1133–43. doi: 10.1097/00000478-199212000-00001][Layfield L. J., Anderson G. M. Specimen labeling errors in surgical pathology: an 18-month experience. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2010 Sep;134(3):466–70. doi: 10.1309/AJCPHLQHJ0S3DFJK][Parkash V., Fadare O., Dewar R., Nakhleh R., Cooper K. Can the Misinterpretation Amendment Rate Be Used as a Measure of Interpretive Error in Anatomic Pathology? Implications of a Survey of the Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Adv. Anat. Pathol. 2017;24(2):82–7. doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000142][Perkins I. U. Error Disclosure in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: A Review of the Literature. AMA J. Ethics. 2016;18(8):809–16. Published 2016 Aug 1. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.nlit1-1608][Grzybicki D. M., Turcsanyi B., Becich M. J., Gupta D., Gilbertson J. R., Raab S. S. Database construction for improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2005 Oct;124(4):500–9. doi: 10.1309/XN25JG7K0JFJB10C][Mahe E., Ara S., Bishara M., Kurian A., Tauqir S., Ursani N., Vasudev P., Aziz T., Ross C., Lytwyn, A. M. Intraoperative pathology consultation: error, cause and impact. Can. J. Surg. 2013;56(3):E13–E18. doi: 10.1503/cjs.011112][Bracamonte E., Gibson B. A., Klein R., Krupinski E. A., Weinstein R. S. Communicating Uncertainty in Surgical Pathology Reports: A Survey of Staff Physicians and Residents at an Academic Medical Center. Acad. Pathol. 2016 Jul 25;3:2374289516659079. doi: 10.1177/2374289516659079][Novis D. A. Pathology Reports: A Second Look. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2016 Apr;140(4):300. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0386-LE][Nakhleh R. E., Idowu M. O., Souers R. J., Meier F. A., Bekeris L. G. Mislabeling of cases, specimens, blocks, and slides: a college of american pathologists study of 136 institutions. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2011;135(8):969–74. doi: 10.5858/2010-0726-CPR][Nakhleh R. E., Nosé V., Colasacco C., Fatheree L. A., Lillemoe T. J., McCrory D. C., Meier F. A., Otis C. N., Owens S. R., Raab S. S., Turner R. R., Ventura C. B., Renshaw A. A. Interpretive Diagnostic Error Reduction in Surgical Pathology and Cytology: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2016 Jan;140(1):29–40. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0511-SA. Epub 2015 May 12.][Idowu M. O., Bekeris L. G., Raab S., Ruby S. G., Nakhleh R. E. Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 86 institutions. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2010 Jul;134(7):969–74. doi: 10.5858/2009-0412-CP.1][Peck M., Moffat D., Latham B., Badrick T. Review of diagnostic error in anatomical pathology and the role and value of second opinions in error prevention. J. Clin. Pathol. 2018 Nov;71(11):995–1000. doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205226. Epub 2018 Aug 1.][Laposata M., Cohen M. B. It's Our Turn: Implications for Pathology From the Institute of Medicine's Report on Diagnostic Error. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2016;140(6):505–7. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0499-ED][Layfield L. J., Frazier S. R. Quality assurance of anatomic pathology diagnoses: Comparison of alternate approaches. Pathol. Res. Pract. 2017;213(2):126–9. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2016.11.007][Raab S. S., Grzybicki D. M., Mahood L. K., Parwani A. V., Kuan S. F., Rao U. N. Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2008 Dec;130(6):905–12. doi: 10.1309/AJCPPIA5D7MYKDWF][Renshaw A. A., Gould E. W. Measuring errors in surgical pathology in real-life practice: defining what does and does not matter. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2007 Jan;127(1):144–52. doi: 10.1309/5KF89P63F4F6EUHB][Renshaw A. A., Young M. L., Jiroutek M. R. How many cases need to be reviewed to compare performance in surgical pathology? Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2003;119(3):388–91. doi: 10.1309/qyyb3k0bhpcegqg3][Valenstein P. N., Sirota R. L. Identification errors in pathology and laboratory medicine. Clin. Lab. Med. 2004 Dec;24(4):979–96, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2004.05.013][Volmer K. E., Idowu M. O., Hunt J. L., Souers R. J., Meier F. A., Nakhleh R. E. Surgical pathology report defects: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 73 institutions. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2014;138(5):602–12. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0099-CP][Frank G. A., Starodubov V. I., eds. The state and main issues of the pathological and anatomical service of the Russian Federation: Industry statistical study for 2021 [Sostoyanie i osnovnye zadachi razvitiya patologo-anatomicheskoj sluzhby Rossijskoj Federacii: Otraslevoe statisticheskoe issledovanie za 2021 god]. Moscow: Minzdrav Rossii; 2022. 104 p. (in Russian).][Meier F. A., Varney R. C., Zarbo R. J. Study of amended reports to evaluate and improve surgical pathology processes. Adv. Anat. Pathol. 2011;18(5):406–13. doi: 10.1097/PAP.0b013e318229bf20][Ruling of the Moscow City Court of the Russian Federation of January 14, 2021 in case No. 33-1095/2021, 2-2595/2020; reference and legal system “Consultant Plus” [Opredelenie Moskovskogo gorodskogo suda RF ot 14 janvarja 2021 goda po delu N 33-1095/2021, 2-2595/2020; spravochno-pravovaja sistema “Konsul'tant Pljus”] (in Russian).][Ruling of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction of the Russian Federation of September 13, 2022 in case N 88-20289/2022; legal reference system “Consultant Plus” [Opredelenie Vtorogo Kassacionnogo Suda Obshchej YUrisdikcii RF ot 13 sentyabrya 2022 goda po delu N 88-20289/2022; spravochno-pravovaya sistema “Konsul'tant Plyus”] (in Russian).][Ruling of the First Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction of the Russian Federation of August 26, 2021 N 88-19153/2021; legal reference system “Consultant Plus” [Opredelenie Pervogo Kassacionnogo Suda Obshchej YUrisdikcii RF ot 26 avgusta 2021 goda N 88-19153/2021; spravochno-pravovaya sistema “Konsul'tant Plyus”] (in Russian).]