IS HISTOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF TISSUE REMOVED BY GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS ALWAYS NECESSARY - BEFORE AND AFTER COMPARISON OF DETECTION RATES OFSERIOUS SKIN-LESIONS
A. Lowy et al., IS HISTOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF TISSUE REMOVED BY GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS ALWAYS NECESSARY - BEFORE AND AFTER COMPARISON OF DETECTION RATES OFSERIOUS SKIN-LESIONS, BMJ. British medical journal, 315(7105), 1997, pp. 406-408
Objectives: To examine whether histological examination of all tissue
removed by general practitioners in minor surgery increases the rate o
f detection of clinically important skin lesions, and to assess the im
pact of such a policy on pathologists' workload. Design: Before and af
ter comparison. Setting: Stratified random sample of 257 general pract
itioner partnerships from the catchment areas of 19 English pathology
laboratories. Subjects: Tissue removed in minor surgery by general pra
ctitioners during the control period (September 1992 to February 1993)
and intervention period (September 1993 to February 1994). Interventi
on: General practitioners referred to their local pathology laboratory
all solid tissue removed in all minor surgery, irrespective of their
previous policy. Main outcome measures: Numbers of specimens referred
for histology by general practitioners during intervention and control
periods; numbers of primary malignant melanomas, non-melanoma maligna
ncies, premalignant lesions, and benign lesions. Results: 257/330 part
nerships participated (response rate 78%). During the intervention per
iod 5723 specimens were sent, compared with 4430 during the control pe
riod. The referral rate increased by an estimated 1.34 specimens per 1
000 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.76, P<0.001). Gen
eral practitioners sent 204 specimens that were malignant (including 1
6 malignant melanomas) in the control period and 188 that were maligna
nt (including 15 malignant melanomas) during the intervention period (
change in total number of malignancies, -1.0 per 100 000 patient years
(-5.9 to 3.8, non-significant). Conclusions: The intervention was ass
ociated dth a substantial increase in laboratory workload, all of whic
h was accounted for by increases in non-serious lesions. This observat
ion should be taken into account when considering the merits of a poli
cy requiring histological examination in every case.