Methods: Cost and workload data were obtained from hospital records for 2015. Time allocation of staff between laboratory testing and other activities was determined using assumptions from published workload studies.
Results: The laboratory received 20,093 cases for testing in 2015, and total expenditures were US $1.20 million, ie, $61.97 per case. The anatomic pathology laboratory accounted for 5.2% of the laboratory budget at the hospital, compared to 64.3% for the clinical laboratory and 30.5% for the microbiology laboratory. We provide comparisons to a similar laboratory in the United States.
Conclusions: Anatomic pathology is more costly than other hospital laboratories due to the labor-intensive work, but is essential, particularly for cancer diagnoses and treatment.
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: 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: Formalin-fixed paraffin- embedded tumour tissue of 144 no special type (NST) invasive breast carcinomas histologically diagnosed between January 2009 and December 2012 in Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah, Alor Setar, Kedah were immunostained with COX-2 antibody. COX-2 overexpression was analysed against demographic data, hormone receptor status, HER2- neu overexpression, histological grade, tumour size and lymph node status.
RESULTS: COX-2 was overexpressed in 108/144 (75%) tumours and was significantly more prevalent (87%) in hormone receptor-positive tumours. There was no correlation between COX-2 overexpression and HER2/neu status. Triple negative cancers had the lowest prevalence (46%) (p<0.05). A rising trend of COX-2 overexpression with increasing age was observed. There was a significant inverse relationship with tumour grade (p<0.05), prevalences being 94%, 83% and 66% in grades 1, 2 and 3 tumours, respectively. A higher prevalence of COX-2 overexpression in smaller size tumours was observed but this did not reach statistical significance. There was no relationship between COX-2 expression and lymph node status.
CONCLUSIONS: This study did not support the generally held notion that COX-2 overexpression is linked to poor prognosis, rather supporting a role in tumorigenesis. Larger scale studies with outcome data and basic studies on cancer pathogenetic pathways will be required to cast further light on whether COX-2 inhibitors would have clinical utility in cancer prevention or blockage of cancer progression. In either setting, the pathological assessment for COX-2 overexpression in breast cancers would have an important role in the selection of cancer patients for personalized therapy with COX-2 inhibitors.