This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Every month, we look forward to reading the "Autopsy and Medicine" series in the ARCHIVES because we believe in the benefits of autopsy, as defined in a recent editorial by Dalen.¹ Another timely article described discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnoses, especially in cases of malignant neoplasm.² The authors claimed that there was a high discordance rate (44%) between clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings in cases of malignancy, despite the technological advances in medicine. However, they could not perform sufficient workups because of patient mortality, thus, their data were not demonstrated on the basis of the diagnostic technology in medicine.

We reviewed 445 malignant tumors diagnosed by postmortem examination from 1988 to 1997. The malignant neoplasms were reviewed for concordance between clinical and autopsy diagnoses. The discordant malignant neoplasms were further subdivided into 2 categories "undiagnosed" (no histopathological diagnosis of malignancy) or "misdiagnosed" (incorrect histopathological diagnosis or incorrect primary site) . . . [Full Text of this Article]

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Discrepancies Between Clinical and Autopsy Diagnoses in Cases of Malignant Neoplasm
Inoue and Yoshikawa
Chest 2002;121:309-309.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Cause of Death and Autopsy Results
Wecht et al.
Chest 2001;120:2113-2113.
FULL TEXT