The surgical pathology report as an educational tool for cancer patients

Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 363-368

  Strobel, Stephen L ^a   Tatchell, Thomas ^a  

^a ST VINCENT MERCY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer survivor; Pathologist; Surgical pathology report; Wellness center

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EDUCATION PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; PATHOLOGIST; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PATIENT EDUCATION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PROGNOSIS;

EID: 0036756142     PISSN: 00917370     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. College of American Pathologists. Reporting on Cancer Specimens: Protocols and Case Summaries. Available at: http:www.cap.orghtmlpublicationcancerfactsheet.html. Accessed 28 October 1999.
2. Beahrs OH, Henson DE, Hutter RVP, Kennedy BJ (Eds). Handbook for the Staging of Cancer (4th Ed). Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1993; pp 1-15.
3. Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE, Kennedy BJ, Murphy GP, O'Sullivan B, Sobin LH, Yarbro JW. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. (5th Ed) Lippincott-Raven, New York. 1997; pp 3-9.
4. Gaber LW, Moore LW, Gaber AO, First MR, Guttmann RD, Pouletty P, Schroeder TJ, Soulillou JP. Utility of standardized histological classification in the management of acute rejection. Transplantation 1998;65:376-380.
5. Leslie KO, Rosai J., Standardization of the surgical pathology report: Formats, templates, and synoptic report. Semin Diagn Pathol, 1994;11:253-257.
6. Nygren E, Wyatt JC, Wright P. Helping clinicians to find data and avoid delays, Lancet 1998;352:1462-1466.
7. Powsner SM, Costa J, Horner RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus: Clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1040-1046.
8. Strobel SL. A role for pathologists and registrars in the education of patients with prostate cancer. J Reg Manage 2002;29:15-17.
9. Wright P, Jansen C, Wyatt JC. How to limit clinician errors in interpretation of data. Lancet 1998;352:1539-1543.
10. Abt LG, Holt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:514-517.
11. Cronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999;86:2426-2435.
12. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of the second opinion pathology: Review of prostate biopsies to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:851-857.
13. Jacques SM, Qufeshi F, Munkarah A, Lawrence WD. Value of second opinion pathology review for posthysterectomy women with endometrial cancer. Mod Pathol 1997;10:103A.
14. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, Sims KL. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;104:560-566.
15. Saferin RE, Bark CJ. Surgical pathology sign out: Routine review of every case by a second pathologist. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17:1190-1192.
16. Tomaszewski JE, LiVolsi VA. Mandatory second opinion of pathologic slides: Is it necessary? Cancer 1999;86:2198-2200.