Some aspects of this issue have been previously studied in the British literature. Attanoos et al., studied phraseology in surgical reports and communication of uncertainty between surgeons and pathologists at the University Hospital Wales [3]. Galloway and Taiyeb examined the interpretation of phrases used to describe uncertainty amongst pathologists, other doctors, and medical students click here online and at the University College London Medical School

[4]. In both of these studies, akin to our findings, there was wide variance in the interpretation of phrases between the groups studied. They similarly concluded adoption of a limited number of descriptive phrases that are mutually understood and accepted by both pathologists and clinicians is needed to avoid ambiguity in surgical pathology reports. An additional study addressed the need for uniformity in reporting cancer for the British National Cancer Registry [5]. In his 2000 commentary on individuality in surgical pathology,

Dr. Foucar aptly concluded, “…There is no place for the pathologist who expresses individuality by subjecting unsuspecting patients to uncontrolled diagnostic self-expression” [6]. Although a clear consensus solution, either at our institution or among our colleagues elsewhere remains elusive; we have reached several important conclusions. Like the British studies, communication PD0325901 cost of uncertainty indeed is a common practice and an unexamined source of possible medical error in the United States. We plan to study this possible relationship more fully. Our own anecdotal experience in tumor boards and an array of practice settings have provided several “near miss” examples,

and more than a few needless repeat biopsies or other procedures due to cautiously worded reports with these phrases. Further study is needed to further refine the specimens and diagnostic settings in G protein-coupled receptor kinase which diagnostic uncertainty is most commonly expressed in order to encourage improved diagnostic criteria and provide better follow-up guidance when such are not fully present and an uncertainty phrase mandated. Additionally, it would be helpful to be able to calculate the possible cost to the health care system due to repeat biopsies in specific cases. Secondly, action needs to be taken to address the issue of the gap between uncertainty intention and perception at least locally and preferably at a national level. An interesting trend appears to be emerging from both our discussion at our institution and those at the national meeting: more recently trained pathologists more fully support national guidelines on terminology while more senior pathologists tend to resist this loss of individuality in reporting. In this and so many other aspects, it will be fascinating to see where the new generations of pathologists take our field.