ArticleSarcoma2020
Diagnostic Differences in Expert Second-Opinion Consultation Cases at a Tertiary Sarcoma Center.
Article in Sarcoma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility Study: Early Experiences With a Cancer Center's Virtual Expert Medical Opinion Program.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of an RNA-based Gene Fusion Assay in Sarcoma for Diagnosis and Management: Experience in an Australian Laboratory.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Article
- Transcriptomic-Based Classification Identifies Prognostic Subtypes and Therapeutic Strategies in Soft Tissue Sarcomas.Cancers · 2025Article
- Utility of artificial intelligence in a binary classification of soft tissue tumors.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Article
- Histological diagnostic discrepancy and its clinical impact in bone and soft tissue tumors referred to a sarcoma center.Cancer science · 2024Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Superiority of Dual-Time Point [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The value of a specialized second-opinion pathological diagnosis for oral and maxillofacial lesions.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- The Efficacy of Molecular Analysis in the Diagnosis of Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A 15-Year Mono-Institutional Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soft tissue tumors are diagnostically challenging, and it is recommended that these are reported or reviewed by specialist soft tissue pathologists. We present our experience with second-opinion (consultation) cases in a specialist tertiary sarcoma center. The aim of this study was to determine areas of diagnostic difficulty in soft tissue pathology. We assessed 581 second-opinion cases which were reviewed by two experienced pathologists in a period of one year. There was 62% concordance between the original and the second-opinion diagnosis, with diagnostic discrepancy in 38%. The largest group of soft tissue neoplasms received for second opinion was fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors, and most major diagnostic problems were encountered in adipocytic and so-called "fibrohistiocytic" tumors. Major diagnostic errors impacting management were found in 148 cases (25%). Morphologic assessment of tumors, judicious use of molecular techniques, newer immunostains and their interpretation, along with importance of knowledge of rarer entities were found to be most useful in avoiding errors.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.