title: Second opinion of anatomical pathology: a complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We discuss the subject of a second opinion for interpretations of anatomical pathology from the perspective of patient care.
  
  
  METHODS
  We grouped 150 cases involving pathological review at our institution into 3 categories depending on the effect on patient care.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of 29 interpretive discrepancies 14 resulted in treatment changes but 7 of these 14 may have been interpreted differently by other practice groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Whether the second opinion represents an interpretive error or a legitimate difference of opinion, the result may affect patient care. Patients referred for treatment among practice groups should have pathological findings reviewed as part of a complete assessment by the new physicians.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
authors.forename: W M
authors.initials: WM
authors.lastname: Murphy
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Rivera-Ramirez
authors.forename: L G
authors.initials: LG
authors.lastname: Luciani
authors.forename: Z
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Wajsman
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011468:Prostatectomy; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D001749:Urinary Bladder Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery