Clinical Impact of a Global Pathology Outreach Program to Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Abstract 31 Background: Diagnostic resources are often limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Transportability of diagnostic specimens facilitates outreach services, potentially giving LMICs access to state-of-the-art services, which results in more precise therapies. The aim of this work was to evaluate the clinical impact of our ongoing international outreach consult service and to identify specific challenges that LMICs face, with the ultimate goal of guiding focused interventions to address needs in LMICs.Methods: Cases received were catalogued, noting demographics, anatomic site, and initial and final diagnoses. Differences between initial and final diagnoses were categorized as minor or major discrepancies with or without clinical impact affecting management and prognosis. A fifth reclassification category was created for cases in which only a broad diagnosis was initially achieved, and for which more definitive classification was subsequently provided.Results: Five hundred forty-five cases were identified. Initial histopathologic diagnoses were available for 318. Of these, 196 (62%) had discrepant definitive diagnoses, including 165 (52%) with clinical impact. Of those with clinical impact, 95 (58%) were reclassifications, 55 (33%) were major discrepancies, and 15 (9%) were minor differences. Of discrepancies with clinical impact, hematopathology cases were most frequent (40; 24%), then neuropathology (28; 17%), soft tissue (27; 16%), bone (18; 11%), and developmental tumors (18; 11%).Conclusion: Global outreach pathology consult services to LMICs have significant clinical and social impact, which is reflected by one half of the cases reviewed resulting in major change or reclassification in diagnoses that significantly impacted clinical management. Although distribution of discrepant diagnoses in this series may reflect a pediatric referral bias, they also provide insight into particular challenges that are faced by pathologists and clinicians from LMICs as a result of limited access to ancillary techniques, such as immunohistochemistry or molecular diagnostics. In addition, many cases were un- or misdiagnosed because of lack of expertise in certain areas. These trends suggest that, other than direct consultative diagnostic support, concerted efforts to improve laboratory infrastructure, resources, and training in LMICs would be efficacious in the long run.AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No COIs from the authors.