The Impact of Second Opinion Expert Pathology Review in Patient Management at the Time of Transurethral Resection of the Bladder.

Background and objective: Pathological features in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer specimens are pivotal in determining correct patients' therapeutic management. Sparse data exist regarding the importance of second opinion performed by an expert uropathologist. This study aimed to assess the importance of a second opinion by an expert uropathologist in the management of bladder cancer.

Methods: The study relied on 272 bladder cancer specimens from 231 patients seeking a pathology second opinion after transurethral resection of the bladder for a clinical suspicion of bladder cancer, relapse, or second-look procedure. Pathology second opinion was offered by an experienced fellowship-trained uropathologist. Discrepancies were recorded considering primary tumor staging, the presence of muscularis propria, and the presence of histological variants. Cases were categorized as no significant discordance, major discordance without management change, and major discordance with management change according to the European Urology Association (EAU) guidelines.

Key findings and limitations: Among 272 second opinion cases, 39% (108/272) had major discordance and 28% (75/272) had major discordance with change in management according to the EAU guidelines. Upstaging and downstaging were reported in 66 (24%) patients. Improper identification of the presence of muscularis propria was found in 46 (17%) cases, of which 11 (4%) were deemed clinically relevant. Differences regarding the presence of histological variants were diagnosed in 40 cases (15%), resulting in eight (3%) changes in clinical management. In ten specimens (4%), multiple clinically relevant discrepancies were found.

Conclusions and clinical implications: The second opinion evaluation changed the clinical management in 25% of the cases. These results support the importance of specimen review by an expert uropathologist as a major driver in the correct bladder cancer management.

Patient summary: We investigated the importance of a second opinion performed by an expert uropathologist in the management of bladder cancer. We found that 25% had their treatment plan changed due to the revised pathological report.