Pathology referrals for XXXX --are we giving the pathologist sufficient clinical information?

@entity1 @entity320 @entity272
AIM: To assess the quality of data included in the histology request form. METHOD: We prospectively reviewed the histology request forms of 375 consecutive @entity272 . In addition, the appropriateness of the surgical specimen was determined. RESULTS: There were 196 @entity1 and 179 @entity1 with a mean age of 58.4 years. The majority of specimens (84.5%) derived from primary care. 233 lesions (62%) were removed by excision, 57 (15%) by shave, three by curettage, with 82 lesions (22%) by punch/incisional biopsy. The clinical diagnosis was either not specified in 56 cases (15%), or simply labelled as 'lesion' in 84 (22%) @entity1 . In 140/375 cases (37%), no useful clinical information was available. The clinical diagnosis matched the histopathological diagnosis in 145 cases (39%). Sixty percent (78/131) of histologically confirmed malignant lesions had not been identified clinically as being malignant: only 2 of 12 (17%) @entity320 , 33/74 (45%) BCCs and 18/45 SCCs (57%) were diagnosed clinically. The specimen type was considered inadequate to make a histopathological diagnosis in 25 cases (6.7%). CONCLUSION: In over a third of histology requests, diagnostic clinical information was absent. In addition, punch biopsy was used in 40% of lesions where a @entity320 was being considered clinically.
