Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population-based approach

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 99, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 517-524

  Srigley, John R ^a,b,g   Mcgowan, Tom ^c,d   Maclean, Andrea ^a   Raby, Marilyn ^a   Ross, Jillian ^e   Kramer, Sarah ^a   Sawka, Carol ^e,f  

^a CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c Pathology Checklist Project   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^e Cancer Care Ontario   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^g CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cancer pathology; Outcomes; Population study; Standardization; Synoptics

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANADA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; COLORECTAL CANCER; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RECORD; NEOPLASM; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATHOLOGIST; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; HEALTH SURVEY; LINGUISTICS; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOLOGY; STANDARD;

HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; NEOPLASMS; ONTARIO; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VOCABULARY, CONTROLLED;

EID: 67049137336     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.21282     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Lester SC, Shikha B, Chen YY, et al.: Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:15-25.
2. Ruby SG, Henson DE: Practice protocols for surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994;118:120-121.
3. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Standardization of the surgical pathology report. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:84-86.
4. Williams GT, Quirke P, Shephard NA, Coordinators: Minimum Dataset for Colorectal Cancer Histopathology Reports. London: Royal College of Pathologists, 1998 [Cited 5 September 2007]. Available from http://www.rcpath.org/resources/ pdf/ G049-ColorectalDataset-Sep07.pdf.
5. Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists. An overview of the College of American Pathologists cancer checklists, 2009. http://www.cap.org/ apps/docs/committees/cancer/cancer-protocols/Overview-CAP-Cancer-Checklists- 090115.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2009.
6. Commission on Cancer, American College of Surgeons, Cancer Program Standards 2004. http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/standards. html. Accessed February 3, 2009.
7. Markel SF, Hirsch SD: Synoptic surgical pathology reporting. Hum Pathol 1991;22:807-810.
8. Rosai J: Standardized reporting of surgical pathology diagnoses for the major tumor types. A proposal. The Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre. Am J Clin Pathol 1993;100:240-255.
9. Leslie KO, Rosai J: Standardization of the surgical pathology report: Formats, templates and synoptic reports. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11:253-257. (Pubitemid 24376704)
10. Zarbo RJ: Interinsititutional 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 1992;116: 1113-1119.
11. Hammond EH, Flinner RL: Clinically relevant breast cancer reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:1171-1175.
12. Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA: The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 1998;41:481-482. (Pubitemid 28312186)
13. Rigby K, Brown SR, Lakin G, et al.: The use of a proforma improves colorectal cancer pathology reporting. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1999;81:401-403.
14. Hatzidis WT, Solomon MJ, Schnitzler M, et al.: Does the caseload of the pathologist influence the minimum and extended data set of pathology variables reported for rectal carcinoma? Colorectal Dis 2000;2:26-30.
15. Branston LK, Greening S, Newcombie RG, et al.: The implementation of guidelines and computerized forms improves the completeness of cancer pathology reporting. The CROPS project: A randomized controlled trial in pathology. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:764-772. (Pubitemid 34280320)
16. Beattie GC, McAdam TK, Elliott S, et al.: Improvement in quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting with a standardized proforma - A comparative study. Colorectal Dis 2003;5:558-562. (Pubitemid 37455620)
17. Chapuis PH, Chan C, Lin BPC, et al.: Pathology reporting of resected colorectal cancers in New South Wales in 2000. ANZ J Surg 2007;77:963-969.
18. Wilkinson NW, Shahryarinejad A, Winston JS, et al.: Concordance with breast cancer pathology reporting practice guidelines. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:38-43. (Pubitemid 36070992)
19. Harvey JM, Sterret GF, McEvoy S, et al.: Key Cancer Patterns of Care Study Group. Pathology reporting of breast cancer: Trends in 1989-1999, following the introduction of mammographic screening in Western Australia. Pathology 2005;37:341-346.
20. Chamberlain DW, Wenckebach GFC, Alexander F, et al.: Pathological examination and the reporting of lung cancer specimens. Clin Lung Cancer 2000;1:261-268.
21. Karim RZ, van den Berg KS, Colman MH, et al.: The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma. Histopathology 2008;52:130-138.
22. Mohanty SK, Piccoli AL, Devine LJ, et al.: Synoptic tool for reporting of hematological and lymphoid neoplasms based on World Health Organization classification and College of American Pathologists checklist. BMC Cancer 2007;31:7-144. (Pubitemid 47308390)
23. Yunker WK, Matthews W, Dort JC: Making the most of your pathology: Standardized histopathology reporting in head and neck cancer. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;37:48-55.
24. De Cordova JF, Kelly N, Eriksen B, et al.: A synoptic report for bone marrow aspiration and core biopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008;132:536.
25. Srigley JR, McGowan T, Evans A, et al.: Quality of cancer pathology reports: A population based analysis of 4,538 cases. Mod Pathol 2007;20:343A.
26. Hammond EH, Henson DE: The role of pathologists in cancer patient staging. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:679-680.
27. Wright FC, Law CH, Last LD, et al.: Barriers to optimal assessment of lymph nodes in colorectal cancer specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2004;121:663-670. (Pubitemid 38533998)
28. Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ, et al.: The computer synoptic operative report-A leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:941-947. (Pubitemid 40486681)