# Pathology report: parts, amendments, examples and how to review

> What each part of a surgical pathology report means, amended and addended reports, CLIA rules, diagnostic disagreement data, a worked example and a review method.

Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/guides/pathology-report/

---
New — **Missing Records Detection:** flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. [See how →](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/)
Record anatomy, September 2026. 10 chapters.

## Pathology report: what each part means and how to read it after the fact

For attorneys, legal nurse consultants, claims reviewers, underwriters and patients. You get the parts of a surgical pathology report, the difference between preliminary, final, addended and amended reports, the federal lab rules, what the research says about diagnostic disagreement, a worked example and a review log.

By [Ahmed Jemaa](https://medrecords.ai/authors/ahmed-jemaa/), Co-Founder and CEO, Medrecords AI. Published 26 September 2026.

A pathology report is the laboratory's written diagnosis on tissue or cells taken from a patient, such as a biopsy, a surgical specimen or a Pap test. A pathologist examines the specimen by eye and under the microscope, then reports what was received, what was seen and the diagnosis. For cancer it also records findings like tumor size, grade and margins.

A pathology report is often the single page that decides a case. It says whether a lump was cancer, whether the margins were clear and whether the tumor had spread. In a delayed diagnosis claim, the questions are usually about that page: what it said, when it said it, whether it changed, and who read it.

This guide is built from the federal laboratory rules for test reports, histopathology and record retention (42 CFR 493.1291, 493.1273 and 493.1105), the College of American Pathologists (CAP) cancer protocol templates, a CAP Q-Probes study of amended reports across 359 laboratories (1998), a Mayo Clinic study of 71,811 outside case reviews (2013), a JAMA study of diagnostic agreement on breast biopsies (2015) and a study of synoptic report completeness (2024). The worked example is hypothetical. Nothing here is legal or medical advice.

8 numbers

### The pathology report in 8 numbers

1.9
amended reports per 1,000 surgical pathology cases, on average, across 359 laboratories
Nakhleh and Zarbo, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 1998
38.7%
of those amended reports changed the final diagnosis
Nakhleh and Zarbo, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 1998
19.2%
of amended reports corrected a patient identification error
Nakhleh and Zarbo, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 1998
0.6%
of 71,811 referred cases had a major disagreement on outside review
Swapp et al., Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2013
90.0%
of major disagreements with follow-up in a reviewed subset changed treatment
Swapp et al., Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2013
75.3%
overall agreement between pathologists and an expert reference diagnosis on breast biopsies
Elmore et al., JAMA, 2015
98%
of required cancer data elements present in synoptic reports, vs 77% in narrative reports
Schaad et al., Virchows Arch, 2024
10 years
a laboratory must keep pathology reports and histopathology slides
42 CFR 493.1105
Chapter 1 Everyone

### What a pathology report is

When a surgeon or radiologist removes tissue, it goes to a pathology laboratory. There it is described, cut, processed into paraffin blocks, sliced thin, stained and put on glass slides. A pathologist reads the slides and writes the report. The report goes to the doctor who ordered the test, and a copy goes into the patient's chart.

There are several kinds. A surgical pathology report covers biopsies and resected tissue. A cytology report covers cells, such as a Pap test or a fine-needle aspirate. A frozen section report is a rapid read during surgery, followed later by the full report on the same tissue. An autopsy report is a separate document with its own structure. This guide covers surgical pathology, which is what most injury, malpractice and disability files contain.

The report is also the start of a paper trail that outlasts it. The blocks and slides are kept after the report is signed, and they can be read again by another pathologist years later. That makes pathology unusual among medical records: the underlying evidence can be re-examined, and a second reading can change the diagnosis.

#### Terms you will meet

Accession numberThe laboratory's unique number for the specimen, such as S26-01234. It ties the report to the blocks and slides.
Gross descriptionWhat the specimen looked like to the naked eye: size, weight, color, what was cut and which pieces went into which cassette.
Microscopic descriptionWhat the pathologist saw on the slides. Some laboratories leave it out for routine cases.
Final diagnosisThe pathologist's conclusion, usually at the top of the report. It is the line most clinicians read first, and sometimes the only one.
Synoptic reportA structured checklist of required cancer findings, such as tumor type, grade, size, margins and lymph nodes, based on the CAP protocol for that cancer.
Frozen sectionA rapid diagnosis on frozen tissue during surgery, used to guide the operation. The final diagnosis comes later on processed tissue.
AddendumInformation added after the report was signed, such as special stain or molecular test results, without changing the original diagnosis.
Amended reportA signed report that has been changed, for example a corrected diagnosis or a fixed patient identification error.
MarginsThe cut edges of the removed tissue. A positive margin means disease reaches the edge and may have been left behind.

If you remember one thing
The report is a reading of slides that still exist. Ask for the slides and blocks as well as the paper when the diagnosis is in dispute.

Chapter 2 Everyone

### The parts of a pathology report, section by section

The mock report below is a breast core biopsy. The layout is invented; every laboratory system differs. The 9 marked parts appear in some form in almost all surgical pathology reports.

Surgical pathology report Hypothetical
Patient K, accession S26-01234
Header — Patient name, 2 identifiers, accession number, laboratory name and address1
Dates — Collected 01/19/2026, received 01/19/2026, reported 01/21/20262
Specimen — Left breast, 2 o'clock, ultrasound-guided core biopsy3
Clinical history — 58-year-old woman, 1.1 cm mass, BI-RADS 4B4
Final diagnosis — Atypical ductal hyperplasia. See comment5
Comment — Excision is recommended to exclude an associated higher-grade lesion6
Gross — 4 tan cores, 0.8 to 1.4 cm, entirely submitted in cassette A17
Microscopic — Ductal proliferation with partial architectural atypia8
Signature — Electronically signed, Dr. P, pathologist, 01/21/2026 16:429
HYPOTHETICAL
1. 1
**Identifiers** Federal rules require a name and identification number, or a unique identifier, plus the laboratory's name and address. Nearly 1 in 5 amended reports in the CAP study fixed an identification error.
2. 2
**Dates** Collection, receipt and report dates. The gap between collection and report is the turnaround time; the gap between report and the next clinical action is often the real question.
3. 3
**Specimen** What tissue, from where, by which procedure. Check that side and site match the procedure note.
4. 4
**Clinical history** What the ordering doctor told the pathologist. Missing or wrong history can change how slides are read.
5. 5
**Final diagnosis** The conclusion. Clinicians often read this line and stop.
6. 6
**Comment** Recommendations and caveats. A recommendation here that never shows up in the clinical notes is a common finding in delayed diagnosis claims.
7. 7
**Gross description** What was received and which pieces went into which block. It tells you whether all the tissue was examined.
8. 8
**Microscopic description** What the slides showed. For a dispute over the diagnosis, this is what a second pathologist will test against the slides.
9. 9
**Authentication** The rule for tissue reports is that the pathologist who examined the tissue and made the diagnosis signs it, and authorizes any electronic signature.

#### What a cancer resection report adds

When a tumor is removed, the report adds a synoptic section built from the CAP cancer protocol for that site. The CAP publishes these [cancer protocol templates](https://www.cap.org/protocols-and-guidelines/cancer-protocols/current-cancer-protocols/) for each cancer type, and each lists the required data elements. Structure helps completeness: in a comparison of 200 synoptic and 200 narrative reports for colon and lung cancer resections, Schaad and colleagues found 98% of required elements in the synoptic reports and 77% in the narrative ones.

| Synoptic element | What it records | What a reviewer checks |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Procedure and specimen | What operation, what organ, which side | Matches the operative report |
| Histologic type and grade | What kind of cancer and how abnormal the cells look | Consistent with the earlier biopsy |
| Tumor size and extent | Largest dimension, spread into nearby tissue | Compared with imaging size and dates, for growth over time |
| Margins | Whether tumor reaches a cut edge, and the distance | A positive margin with no re-excision or plan in the notes |
| Lymph nodes | Number examined, number involved | Node count and involvement drive stage and treatment |
| Lymphovascular invasion | Tumor in blood or lymph vessels | Often cited in prognosis and life expectancy arguments |
| Pathologic stage | pT, pN and, where known, pM categories | Stage at diagnosis vs the stage it might have been found at |
| Biomarkers | Receptor status or other tests, often in an addendum | Results reported after the main report, and who received them |

If you remember one thing
Read the comment as well as the diagnosis line. Recommendations for more tissue or more tests live there.

Chapter 3 Deciding

### Preliminary, final, addended and amended reports

A single specimen can produce several documents over weeks. Most record productions include only the latest one, which can hide the fact that the diagnosis changed.

| Version | When it is issued | Does the diagnosis change? | What to ask for |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Frozen section | During surgery, within minutes | It can differ from the final report | The frozen section diagnosis and the time it was called to the operating room |
| Preliminary | Before the full workup, in some laboratories | It can | Whether a preliminary result was released, and to whom |
| Final | When the pathologist signs out | This is the baseline | The signed version with its sign-out time |
| Addendum | After sign-out, for new test results or consults | Usually not; it adds information | Every addendum, with its date and distribution |
| Amended or corrected | After sign-out, when something in the report was wrong | It can, including the diagnosis | The original and every corrected version, as federal rules require the laboratory to keep both |

Amendments are not rare events at the scale of a busy laboratory. The CAP Q-Probes study by Nakhleh and Zarbo covered 1,667,547 surgical pathology cases in 359 laboratories and found 3,147 amended reports, a mean of 1.9 per 1,000 cases. What changed in them:

**What changed in 3,147 amended surgical pathology reports** — share of amendments — Nakhleh and Zarbo, 1998
More than a third of amendments changed the final diagnosis. About 1 in 5 of all amendments were triggered by a clinician asking for the case to be reviewed.

For a reviewer, 2 things follow. First, request every version of the report and the distribution record for each, because the amendment is only useful if the treating doctor received it. Second, check whether the chart after the amendment reflects the new diagnosis. A clinic note that repeats the original diagnosis weeks after it was corrected is a finding.

If you remember one thing
Ask for every version of the report and who each was sent to. The latest version alone hides the history.

Chapter 4 Everyone

### The rules behind pathology reports

Clinical laboratories in the US operate under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), in 42 CFR part 493. Unlike most parts of the chart, the lab report has a federal rule that lists what it must contain and what the lab must do when it is wrong.

| Rule | What it requires | What it means for review |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 42 CFR 493.1291(c) | Report shows patient identification, lab name and address, report date, test performed, specimen source, the result or interpretation, and any problem with specimen condition | A report missing these is incomplete on its face |
| 42 CFR 493.1291(g) | Immediate alert when a result shows an imminently life-threatening condition or a panic value | Look for the record of the call, who took it and when |
| 42 CFR 493.1291(h) | When results are late, the lab decides whether to notify, based on urgency | Turnaround delays may have a notification trail |
| 42 CFR 493.1291(k) | On finding a reporting error: promptly notify, issue a corrected report, keep the original and the corrected report | Every amended report should have an original behind it and a notice in front of it |
| 42 CFR 493.1291(l) | Labs may give patients or their representatives access to completed reports | Patients can request reports from the lab directly |
| 42 CFR 493.1273(d) and (e) | Tissue reports signed by a qualified pathologist, who authorizes any electronic signature; recognized disease terminology | Check who signed and whether the terms are standard |
| 42 CFR 493.1105(a)(6) and (7) | Pathology reports kept 10 years; histopathology slides 10 years; cytology slides 5 years; blocks 2 years; tissue remnants until diagnosis | Slides may still exist for a second reading; blocks for new testing may not |

[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1291) [](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1291) [](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1291) [](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1291) [](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1291) [](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1273) [](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1105)
On corrections, the rule is specific:

"Maintain duplicates of the original report, as well as the corrected report."

#### Retention and the second reading

The retention periods decide what evidence exists. A report and its slides must be kept at least 10 years, so a biopsy from 5 years ago can usually be re-read. Blocks need only be kept 2 years, so a request for new stains or molecular tests on older tissue may fail. Many laboratories keep materials longer under their own policies or state law, so ask. A preservation letter should name the accession numbers and ask for slides and blocks by name. Our guide to [getting medical records for a lawsuit](https://medrecords.ai/guides/how-to-get-medical-records-for-a-lawsuit/) covers the request process.

If you remember one thing
Labs must keep the original report next to any correction. If you received only 1 version of an amended report, ask for the other.

Chapter 5 Deciding

### How often pathologists disagree

Pathology is interpretation. For most specimens, agreement is high. For some categories of disease, trained pathologists reading the same slide reach different answers often enough that second opinions are routine at referral centers.

At Mayo Clinic, Swapp and colleagues looked at 71,811 cases referred from outside institutions between 2005 and 2010, all re-read before treatment. They found 457 major disagreements, 0.6% of cases. The areas with the most were gastrointestinal and liver pathology (17.5% of the disagreements), lymph nodes (16.0%), bone and soft tissue (10.3%) and genitourinary pathology (9.4%). In a subset of 166 of those cases, follow-up was available for 140: treatment was affected in 126 (90.0%) and prognosis in 129 (92.1%), and the revised diagnosis agreed with the follow-up findings in 84.9% of cases.

Breast biopsies show how much depends on the category. In the study by Elmore and colleagues, 115 pathologists in 8 states interpreted 240 breast biopsy slides, 6,900 readings in all, and their diagnoses were compared with a reference diagnosis set by an expert panel:

**Agreement with the expert reference diagnosis, breast biopsies** — by category — Elmore et al., JAMA, 2015
Overall agreement was 75.3%. For atypia, 17% of readings were overinterpreted and 35% underinterpreted. The study used 1 slide per case, which is less than a pathologist usually has.

For a reviewer, these numbers set expectations. A changed diagnosis on second review is not proof of negligence; disagreement exists among careful pathologists, and it is highest in borderline categories. Whether a first reading fell below the standard of care is a question for a pathology expert with the slides in hand. What the record can show is when each reading happened, what it said, and what was done with it.

#### Where pathology problems show up in a file

| Pattern | Example | Why it is a question |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Recommendation not followed | "Excision recommended" with no referral in later notes | Who received the report, and who owned the follow-up? |
| Amendment not reflected | Clinic note repeats the original diagnosis after a corrected report | Was the amended report sent to that clinician? |
| Imaging and pathology disagree | Suspicious mass on imaging, benign biopsy, no repeat | Was the result judged concordant, and by whom? |
| Specimen mismatch | Report says right side; procedure note says left | Possible labeling or identification error |
| Long turnaround | 3 weeks from collection to report on a routine biopsy | Was there a delay notice, and did it change care? |
| Frozen and final differ | Frozen section benign; final shows cancer at the margin | Was the surgeon told, and was a second surgery planned? |

If you remember one thing
A second opinion that changes the diagnosis is a starting point. The record shows who knew what and when; a pathologist decides whether the first reading was wrong.

Chapter 6 Building

### Worked example: a corrected report that did not reach the clinic

**Hypothetical.** The patient, clinicians, laboratory, dates and pages are invented to show the method. It is not a real case or a customer file. Patient K, 58, has a breast mass biopsied in January 2026. The first report says atypical ductal hyperplasia and recommends excision. A later corrected report changes the diagnosis. In August an excision shows invasive carcinoma. The file holds radiology reports (pages 210 to 238), pathology reports (pages 300 to 322) and primary care notes (pages 400 to 418).

**The pathology reports beside the rest of the file** — hypothetical — Illustration
Pathology review log, 01/2026 to 08/2026, hypothetical — 9 entries
| Date | Source | Record says | Question | Page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 01/12 | Radiology | 1.1 cm mass, BI-RADS 4B, biopsy advised | Baseline | 210 |
| 01/19 | Procedure note | Core biopsy, left breast, 2 o'clock, 4 cores | Side and site match the report | 230 |
| 01/21 | Pathology | Atypical ductal hyperplasia; excision recommended | Recommendation in the comment | 301 |
| 01/22 | Radiology | "Concordant benign result. Return to routine screening" | Comment's excision advice not carried over | 236 |
| 02/02 | Pathology | Amended report: ductal carcinoma in situ, low grade, after consensus review | Diagnosis changed | 303 |
| 02/02 | Distribution | Amended report sent to the ordering radiologist only | Not sent to primary care | 304 |
| 03/15 | Primary care | "Breast biopsy benign. Routine follow-up" | 6 weeks after the correction | 412 |
| 08/10 | Radiology | Mass now 1.9 cm | Growth since January | 220 |
| 08/20 | Pathology | Excision: invasive ductal carcinoma | The diagnosis the timeline builds toward | 320 |

Gold rows: entries that need a question. Green row: the event the timeline builds toward.
9 entries, 4 questions. The corrected report existed from February. The chart after it still describes a benign biopsy.

#### What each flag means

1. **A recommendation that did not travel.** The pathology comment advised excision. The radiology concordance note called the result benign and returned the patient to screening. Whether that was a reasonable call is for experts; the record shows the 2 documents disagree.
2. **A changed diagnosis.** The amended report replaced atypia with DCIS. The original must still exist, and the laboratory's correction log should show why.
3. **A narrow distribution list.** The corrected report went to 1 recipient. The question is whether anyone who saw it acted on it.
4. **A clinic note that repeats the old diagnosis.** 6 weeks after the correction, the primary care note still says benign. Ask whether the amended report was in that clinic's chart when the note was written.

#### The same file on 1 timeline

**Every pathology result and the clinical response to it** — hypothetical — Illustration; pages refer to the hypothetical file
1. 01/12
**Imaging: suspicious 1.1 cm mass**
Biopsy advised.

Radiology p. 210
2. 01/21
**Pathology: atypia, excision recommended**
Recommendation in the comment.

Pathology p. 301
3. 01/22
**Concordance note: benign, routine screening**
No mention of excision.

Radiology p. 236
4. 02/02
**Amended report: DCIS**
Sent to the ordering radiologist only.

Pathology pp. 303 to 304
5. 02/02 to 08/10
**No breast follow-up charted**
About 6 months.

Primary care pp. 400 to 418
6. 03/15
**Primary care: "biopsy benign"**
Original diagnosis repeated.

Primary care p. 412
7. 08/20
**Excision: invasive carcinoma**
Mass grew from 1.1 to 1.9 cm.

Pathology p. 320; radiology p. 220

Read by department, each record looks routine. Read by date, the file shows a corrected diagnosis and 6 months with no response to it.

##### What the pathology record can show

When read with the chart

- What each version of the report said, and when it was signed.
- Who each version was sent to.
- Whether recommendations in the comment were acted on.
- How tumor size and stage changed between dates.

##### What it cannot show alone

Where you need an expert or another record

- Whether the first reading was within the standard of care (a pathologist with the slides).
- Whether a report was actually read (EHR access logs, testimony).
- How the delay changed the outcome (an oncologist).
- Why a correction was made (the lab's quality records).

If you remember one thing
Put every pathology version on the same timeline as the clinical notes. The gap between a result and a response is where most pathology findings live.

Chapter 7 Building

### How to review a pathology report, step by step

The method works for a single biopsy or a cancer case with a dozen specimens. Start by listing every specimen, because each has its own accession number and its own chain of reports.

1. **List every specimen.** 1 row per accession number: date collected, site, procedure, laboratory.
2. **Collect every version.** Frozen section, preliminary, final, addenda and amended reports, with sign-out times and distribution lists.
3. **Match specimen to procedure.** Side, site and date should agree with the procedure or operative note.
4. **Read the comment.** Pull out every recommendation: more tissue, more stains, correlation with imaging, consultation.
5. **Trace each recommendation forward.** Find the next note that mentions it. Log the ones that no note mentions.
6. **Compare versions.** For each amended report, note what changed and the date. Check the chart after that date for the new diagnosis.
7. **Compare with imaging.** Size, site and suspicion level should be consistent. A benign result on a suspicious lesion needs a documented concordance decision.
8. **Preserve the evidence.** Send a preservation letter for slides and blocks by accession number before retention periods run.

#### Is this the diagnosis the treating doctors acted on?

1
**Is this the latest signed version of the report?**
YesGo to 2.
NoGet the later versions and start from the newest.
2
**Was it sent to the doctor who managed the patient next?**
YesGo to 3.
NoLog the distribution gap with the page cite.
3
**Does the next clinical note use this diagnosis?**
YesGo to 4.
NoLog the mismatch with both page cites.
4
**Were the report's recommendations carried out?**
YesRely on it, cited to its page.
NoLog the recommendation and the date it was due.

##### 1. Pathology report abstraction template

1 block per report version. Keep the accession number on every block.

PATHOLOGY REPORT ABSTRACT
Patient: [ID] Laboratory: [NAME, ADDRESS]
Accession number: [ ] Version: [frozen / preliminary / final / addendum / amended]
Collected: [DATE] Received: [DATE] Signed: [DATE, TIME]
Signed by: [NAME, CREDENTIAL]
Page(s): [ ]

Specimen: [site, side, procedure]
Matches procedure note? [YES / NO, page]
Clinical history given: [ ]

Final diagnosis: [verbatim]
Comment / recommendations: [verbatim]
Synoptic findings (if cancer): type [ ] grade [ ] size [ ]
 margins [ ] nodes [ examined / positive ] LVI [ ] stage [ ]
Addenda / biomarkers: [results, dates]

If amended: what changed [ ], reason given [ ]
Distribution: [recipients]
Next clinical note that uses this result: [DATE, page]
Questions: [ ]

##### 2. Pathology records and materials request

Send to the laboratory as well as the hospital. Adapt to your jurisdiction's rules.

RE: [PATIENT NAME], DOB [ ], accession numbers [LIST]

Please produce, for each accession number listed:
1. Every version of the report: frozen section, preliminary,
 final, addenda, and amended or corrected reports, including
 the original of any corrected report.
2. Sign-out date and time for each version.
3. The distribution record for each version (recipients,
 method, date sent).
4. Records of any critical value or significant finding
 communication (who was called, by whom, when).
5. Outside consultation or second opinion reports.
6. The requisition and clinical history received with the
 specimen.

Please also preserve, and confirm in writing that you are
preserving, all glass slides, paraffin blocks and any remaining
tissue for these accession numbers, and do not discard them
under routine retention schedules.

#### Before you rely on a pathology report

- **Every accession number is listed** *Including frozen sections and outside consults.*
- **All versions are in hand** *The original of any amended report as well as the correction.*
- **Distribution records are requested** *They show who received each version.*
- **Specimen matches the procedure note** *Side, site and date.*
- **Every recommendation is traced forward** *To the note that acted on it, or to a gap.*
- **Slides and blocks are preserved** *By accession number, in writing.*

0 of 6 checked.

Surgical specimens start in the operating room, so read the report next to the operative note; our guide to [altered medical records](https://medrecords.ai/guides/altered-medical-records/) covers what to do when versions conflict, and the [EHR audit trail guide](https://medrecords.ai/guides/ehr-audit-trail-medical-malpractice/) covers how to show who opened a result and when. For the wider method, see [how to write a medical chronology](https://medrecords.ai/guides/how-to-write-a-medical-chronology/).

If you remember one thing
Every recommendation in a pathology comment should lead to a later note. The ones that lead nowhere are your questions.

Chapter 8 Deciding

### AI and pathology report review

Pathology reports are short, but a cancer file can hold dozens of them across several laboratories and years, mixed in with thousands of pages of clinic notes and imaging. Chapter 7's method is mostly matching: specimen to procedure, version to version, recommendation to the next note. That is where software helps.

AI medical record review can list every pathology report by accession number and date, put each version on the same timeline as the imaging and clinic notes, and cite every line to its page. That turns a scattered file into an AI medical chronology where a corrected diagnosis, or a recommendation with no follow-up, is visible at a glance, and where each finding can be checked against the source in seconds.

The limits are real. A large language model (LLM) summarizing a file can collapse 2 versions of a report into 1 diagnosis, or report the final diagnosis line and drop the comment; hallucination and omission are both risks, which is why every line needs its page. Scanned reports need OCR that keeps synoptic tables intact. Whether a first reading was wrong is a pathologist's judgment made on the slides, which no record review can replace. The human in the loop reads the flagged pages.

Medrecords AI works this way on the files you upload. It builds a [cited medical chronology](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) with each pathology version, imaging study and clinic note on 1 timeline, each linked to its page. It tracks how findings like tumor size change across dates with [condition progression tracking](https://medrecords.ai/product/condition-progression-tracking/). It answers questions like "every pathology recommendation and the next note that mentions it" through [cited Q&A](https://medrecords.ai/product/qa/) and [record search](https://medrecords.ai/product/medical-record-search/), and it flags [records that should exist but were not produced](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/), such as an original behind an amended report. Flags are signals, not verdicts. It does not read slides or images for diagnosis, and it does not retrieve records from providers. It runs under SOC 2 and HIPAA with a signed business associate agreement (see [security](https://medrecords.ai/security/) and [HIPAA](https://medrecords.ai/hipaa/) ). Self-Service bills 10 cents a deduplicated page, down to 5 cents at volume, duplicates free; Enterprise On-Prem is an annual license.

If you are comparing tools, our guide to [medical record review](https://medrecords.ai/guides/medical-record-review/) covers what to ask any medical chronology software vendor. See how pathology review fits [medical malpractice](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/medical-malpractice/), [expert witness](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/expert-witnesses/), [life and disability underwriting](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/life-disability-underwriting/) and [legal nurse consultant](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/legal-nurse-consultants/) work.

The offer

#### Every pathology version on 1 timeline, cited to its page.

Book a demo on a file with an amended report or a recommendation that went nowhere, then run your first case free on us. Every line comes back cited to its source page. You review, you revise, you sign.

[Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See the cited chronology](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/)
Scheduling only. No records move from a public page.

If you remember one thing
AI can line up every pathology version against the notes that followed, with a page on every line. A pathologist still decides whether a reading was right.

Chapter 9 Everyone

### Frequently asked questions

What are the parts of a pathology report?Patient and specimen identifiers, dates, the specimen description, clinical history, the final diagnosis, a comment, the gross description, the microscopic description and the pathologist's signature. Cancer resections add a synoptic section with type, grade, size, margins, lymph nodes and stage.
What is the difference between an addendum and an amended pathology report?An addendum adds information after sign-out, such as special stain or biomarker results, without changing the diagnosis. An amended or corrected report changes something that was wrong, which can include the diagnosis.
How common are amended pathology reports?In a CAP study of 1,667,547 cases in 359 laboratories, the mean was 1.9 amended reports per 1,000 cases, and 38.7% of amendments changed the final diagnosis.
How long are pathology slides and reports kept?Federal rules require laboratories to keep pathology reports and histopathology slides at least 10 years, cytology slides 5 years and paraffin blocks 2 years. Many laboratories keep them longer.
Can a pathology diagnosis be re-examined years later?Often yes, because the slides are kept. Another pathologist can re-read them. New stains or molecular tests need the blocks, which may have been discarded after 2 years.
How often do pathologists disagree?It depends on the tissue. At Mayo Clinic, 0.6% of 71,811 referred cases had a major disagreement. On breast biopsies, agreement with an expert reference was 96% for invasive cancer and 48% for atypia.
Why do pathology reports matter in delayed diagnosis cases?The report often holds the first record of the disease, or a recommendation for more tissue. The case usually turns on when that report was issued, whether it changed, who received it and what was done next.
Can AI read pathology reports accurately?It can extract diagnoses, synoptic findings and recommendations from the text, and list every version with its page cite. It does not replace a pathologist's reading of the slides, and every extracted line should point back to its source page.
Is it HIPAA compliant to upload pathology reports to an AI tool?It can be, with a vendor that signs a business associate agreement, holds a SOC 2 report and commits in writing not to train on your data. A consumer chatbot without a BAA is a different matter.

Chapter 10 Everyone

### Sources and method

Regulations were read in full text from primary sources in September 2026, and quoted text is verbatim. Study figures come from the published abstracts. The mock report, patient, clinicians, dates and pages in chapters 2, 6 and 7 are hypothetical. Product facts come from this site's product pages. Nothing here is legal or medical advice.

- [42 CFR 493.1291](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1291): test report content, critical values, delayed results, corrected reports and patient access.
- [42 CFR 493.1273](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1273): histopathology, signatures and terminology.
- [42 CFR 493.1105](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/493.1105): retention of reports, slides, blocks and tissue.
- [College of American Pathologists, cancer protocol templates](https://www.cap.org/protocols-and-guidelines/cancer-protocols/current-cancer-protocols/).
- [Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ, "Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error detection and avoidance: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 1,667,547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories"](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9648896/), Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 122(4):303-309, 1998.
- [Swapp RE, Aubry MC, Salomão DR, et al., "Outside case review of surgical pathology for referred patients: the impact on patient care"](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22775269/), Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 137(2):233-240, 2013.
- [Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, et al., "Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens"](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.1405), JAMA 313(11):1122-1132, 2015.
- [Schaad N, Berezowska S, Perren A, Hewer E, "Impact of template-based synoptic reporting on completeness of surgical pathology reports"](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10791929/), Virchows Archiv 484(1):31-36, 2024.

### More guides

- [**Radiology report: what each part means and how to read it after the fact** — What each part of a radiology report means, preliminary vs final reads, federal rules, what error studies show…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/radiology-report/)
- [**Reconciling a defense record production: the page-level method for medical malpractice teams** — Why the defense production never matches your pre-suit medical records, and a page-level method to reconcile…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/reconciling-defense-record-production/)
- [**SANE exam records: the sexual assault forensic exam, page by page** — What a SANE exam record contains, how consent, evidence and chain of custody are documented, and how…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/sane-exam-sexual-assault-records/)
- [**SOAP note: what goes in each part and how to read a progress note** — What goes in each part of a SOAP note, how progress notes are written and billed, a worked example, a SOAP note…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/soap-note/)
- [**TBI imaging, diffuse axonal injury and DTI: the records that decide severity** — TBI imaging in court: why a normal CT does not rule out brain injury, how SWI and DTI get challenged, and the…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/tbi-imaging-diffuse-axonal-injury-dti/)
- [**The eggshell plaintiff rule and pre-existing conditions: how prior records decide the case** — The eggshell plaintiff rule, aggravation and apportionment explained, what the defense looks for in prior…](https://medrecords.ai/guides/eggshell-plaintiff-pre-existing-conditions/)