Abstract
Histological diagnosis of sarcomas (malignant bone and soft tissue tumors) is challenging due to their rarity, morphological diversity, and constantly evolving diagnostic criteria. In this study, we aimed to assess the concordance in histological diagnosis of bone and soft tissue tumors between referring hospitals and a tertiary sarcoma center and analyzed the clinical impact of the diagnostic alteration. We analyzed 628 consecutively accessioned specimens from 624 patients who visited a specialized sarcoma center for treatment. The diagnoses at referring hospitals and those at the sarcoma center were compared and classified into four categories: agreed, disagreed, specified, and de-specified. Of the 628 specimens, the diagnoses agreed in 403 (64.2%) specimens, whereas some changes were made in 225 (35.8%) specimens: disagreed in 153 (24.3%), specified in 52 (8.3%), and de-specified in 20 (3.2%) cases. The benign/intermediate/malignant judgment changed for 92 cases (14.6%). The diagnostic change resulted in patient management modification in 91 cases (14.5%), including surgical and medical treatment changes. The main inferred reason for the diagnostic discrepancies was a different interpretation of morphological findings of the tumor, which accounted for 48.9% of the cases. This was followed by the unavailability of specialized immunohistochemical antibodies and the unavailability of genetic analysis. In summary, our study clarified the actual clinical impact of diagnostic discrepancy in bone and soft tissue tumors. This may underscore the value of pathology consultation, facilitating access to specialized diagnostic tools, and continued education. These measures are expected to improve diagnostic precision and ultimately benefit patients.