JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Missing Elements in Surgical Pathology Reports: Breast, Colon and Stomach Cancers
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Missing Elements in Surgical Pathology Reports: Breast, Colon and Stomach Cancers
Kadivar, Maryam; Rahimabad, Parnian Kheirkhah;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Cancer pathology reports play an important role in choice of patient care. They provide crucial information concerning diagnosis, therapy options, and prognosis. Professional pathology institutions, such as the College of American Pathologists (CAP), have developed checklists to ensure the presence of all the required elements in reports. In this study, 438 surgical pathology reports of patients with breast (148), colon (147), and stomach cancer (143) were evaluated with respect to the presence of mandated elements according to CAP checklists. The most common missing element in all the three types of cancer was `staging` (73.6, 53.1, and 56.6% in breast, colon, and stomach cancer reports missed `staging`, respectively). The second most missing element was `tumor site` in breast (64.2%) and stomach cancer (30.1%), and `procedure` in colon cancer (29.3%). `Perineural invasion` was the third most missing element in the three types of cancer (25.7, 17.0, and 22.4% in breast, colon, and stomach cancer, respectively). Only 11.4% of reports included all key elements required by CAP. The use of checklists was associated with higher rate of completeness. This study demonstrates that the key elements requiring the information on the requisition forms from the clinicians are commonly missed, leading to ambiguity.
 Keywords
Pathology report;breast cancer;colon cancer;stomach cancer;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Baskovich BW, Allan RW (2011). Web-based synoptic reporting for cancer checklists. J Pathol Inform, 2, 16.

2.
Casati B, Bjugn R (2012). Structured electronic template for histopathology reporting on colorectal carcinoma resections: five-year follow-up shows sustainable long-term quality improvement. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 136, 652-6. crossref(new window)

3.
Gephardt GN, Baker PB (1996). Lung carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of over 8300 cases from 464 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 120, 922-7.

4.
Goldsmith JD, Siegal GP, Suster S, et al (2008). Reporting guidelines for clinical laboratory reports in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 132, 1608-16.

5.
Haugland HK, Casati B, Dorum LM, et al (2011). Template reporting matters--a nationwide study on histopathology reporting on colorectal carcinoma resections. Hum Pathol, 42, 36-40. crossref(new window)

6.
Idowu MO, Bekeris LG, Raab S, et al (2010). Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 86 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 134, 969-74.

7.
Kempson RL (1992). The time is now. Checklists for surgical pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 116, 1107-8.

8.
Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R (2011). What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med, 135, 1471-5. crossref(new window)

9.
Nakhleh RE (2006). What is quality in surgical pathology? J Clin Pathol, 59, 669-72. crossref(new window)

10.
Nakhleh RE (2011). Quality in surgical pathology communication and reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 135, 1394-7. crossref(new window)

11.
Onerheim R, Racette P, Jacques A, et al (2008). Improving the quality of surgical pathology reports for breast cancer: a centralized audit with feedback. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 132, 1428-31.

12.
Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ (2000). Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 124, 1040-6.

13.
Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, et al (2009). Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol, 99, 517-24. crossref(new window)

14.
Williams CL, Bjugn R, Hassell LA (2015). Current status of discrete data capture in synoptic surgical pathology and cancer reporting. Pathol Laboratory Med Intl, 7, 11-22.

15.
Zarbo RJ (1992). Interinstitutional assessment of colorectal carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of practice patterns from 532 laboratories and 15,940 reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 116, 1113-9.