METHODS: In this descriptive, retrospective study, we selected all prostate biopsies received by the diagnostic pathology department of a tertiary hospital in Malaysia in the year 2020, from adult patients for analysis. Data on demographics, specimen preparation processes, and final histopathological diagnosis was extracted from the Laboratory Information System (LIS). The cost incurred for each biopsy diagnosed as cancer was calculated with the cost prices referenced from laboratory documentation. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, version 28.
RESULTS: The total cost for detection of cancer using TR biopsy ranged from RM11.22 - RM271.02 with mean of RM47.53. The standard deviation, s is RM43.45. For TP biopsies, the total cost ranged from RM112.20 - RM349.56 with mean of RM160.85, standard deviation of RM80.37. TR biopsies had a detection rate of 43.2%, while TP biopsies had a 24.2% cancer detection rate. There is a 3.38-fold increase in costs between TR and TP biopsy.
CONCLUSION: The results show a 3.38-fold increase in costs and a reduction in cancer detection rate when comparing TR and TP biopsy. The reason for the reduced detection rate is unascertained in this study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All cases received by the Department of Pathology for histopathological examination between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019 were retrieved from the Laboratory Information System (LIS). All the IHC requests over this period were tabulated, with the exception of renal, muscle, rectal and nerve biopsies with their pre-defined algorithms for stains and cytological specimens. IHC stains performed solely for purpose of directing targeted treatment were also not included.
RESULTS: Immunohistochemistry was performed in 2044 (21.1%) of the total of 9686 cases, with a total of 5969 IHC stains performed i.e. 2.9 (5969/2044) IHC stains per case. All 91 antibodies available were used at least once during the study. 14 histopathologists (5 with < 10-years and 9 with ≥ 10-years postgraduate specialist experience) reported on the cases with no significant difference (p=0.90) in their usage of IHC stains. Among the most common IHC stains used, requests for Ki67 and MNF116 showed higher standard deviations compared with p63, CK7 and S100 among the histopathologists. From the relatively higher standard deviation for Ki67 and MNF116 it appeared that there was a greater difference in the requesting pattern between histopathologists for these two antibodies.
CONCLUSION: The rate of use of IHC in our centre seems compatible with that of an academic centre. Personal preferences of the histopathologists, rather than years of postgraduate specialist experience appeared to influence the rate of usage and choice of antibodies.
METHODS: The authors obtained data on volumes and reimbursement rates for the most common 25 tests at the five hospitals with which they are affiliated and organized them to be as comparable as possible. Simple descriptive statistics were used to make cross-country comparisons.
RESULTS: There are strong similarities across all five hospitals in the top five tests by both volume and revenue. However, the top five by volume differ from the top five by revenue. Reimbursement rates also follow common patterns, being lowest for the most common biochemical test; intermediate for the most common hematology and microbiology tests, respectively; and highest for the most common pathology test.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the most common tests also appear in the new Essential Diagnostics List. This may inform plans for universal health coverage.