Cancer biomarkers: The role of structured data reporting

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 139, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 587-593

  Simpson, Ross W ^a   Berman, Michael A ^b   Foulis, Philip R ^c   Divaris, Dimitrios X G ^d   Birdsong, George G ^e   Mirza, Jaleh ^f   Moldwin, Richard ^f   Spencer, Samantha ^f   Srigley, John R ^g   Fitzgibbons, Patrick L ^h  

^a Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital   (United States)

^b Jefferson Regional Medical Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^d GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^g CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^h ST JUDE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TUMOR MARKER;

CHECKLIST; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

CHECKLIST; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; NARRATION; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84928974419     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0082-RA     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Hutter RVP. Guidelines for data to be included in consultation reports on breast cancer, bladder cancer, and Hodgkin's disease. Pathologist. 1986;40:18-23.
2. Ellis DW. Surgical pathology reporting at the crossroads: beyond synoptic reporting. Pathology. 2011;43(5):404-409. doi:10.1097/PAT.0b013e32834915e8.
3. Refsnes Data. XML tutorial. http://www.w3schools.com/xml. Accessed February 5, 2014.
4. International Health Terminology and Standards Development Organisation. About SNOMED CT. http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/snomed-ct0/. Accessed February 5, 2014.
5. Regenstrief Institute. LOINC® from Regenstrief. http://loinc.org/. Accessed February 5, 2014.
6. Idowu MO, Bekeris LG, Raab S, Ruby SG, Nakhleh RE. Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 86 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(7):969-974. doi:10.1043/2009-0412-CP.1.
7. Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R. 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. 2011;135(11):1471-1475. doi:10.5858/arpa.2010-0558-OA.
8. Nakhleh RE. What is quality in surgical pathology? J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(7):669-672. doi:10.1136/jcp.2005.031385.
9. Nguyen A, Lawley M, Hansen D, Colquist S. Structured pathology reporting for cancer from free text: lung cancer case study. Electron J Health Inform. 2011;7(1):e8.
10. Buckley JM, Coopey SB, Sharko J, et al. The feasibility of using natural language processing to extract clinical information from breast pathology reports. J Pathol Inform. 2012;3:23. doi:10.4103/2153-3539.97788.
11. Henson DE, Hutter RV, Farrow G. Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland: a publication of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists: task force on the examination of specimens removed from patients with prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118(8):779-783.
12. Henson DE, Hutter RV, Sobin LH, Bowman HE. Protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with colorectal carcinoma: basis for checklists: Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists: task force for protocols on the examination of specimens from patients with colorectal cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994;118(2):122-125.
13. Cagle PT, Sholl LM, Lindeman NI, et al. Template for reporting results of biomarker testing of specimens from patients with non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(2):171-174. doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0232-CP.
14. Cagle PT, Allen TC, Olsen RJ. Lung cancer biomarkers: present status and future developments. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(9):1191-1198. doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0319-CR.
15. Bartley AN, Hamilton SR, Alsabeh R, et al. Template for reporting results of biomarker testing of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(2):166-170. doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0231-CP.
16. Fitzgibbons PL, Dillon DA, Alsabeh R, et al. Template for reporting results of biomarker testing of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the breast [published online ahead of print November 15, 2013]. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(5):595-601. doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0566-CP.
17. Amin MB. Key issues in reporting common cancer specimen findings using the College of American Pathologists cancer protocols. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(3):284-286. doi:10.1043/1543-2165(2006)130[284:KIIRCC]2.0.CO;2.
18. Allen TC, Hammond MEH, Robboy SJ. Quality and the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(11):1441. doi:10.5858/arpa.2011-0287-SA.
19. Nofech-Mozes S. Synoptic reporting on breast cancer biomarkers: a novel quality improvement module. Can J Pathol. 2011;3(4):11-15.
20. Srigley J, Lankshear S, Brierley J, et al. Closing the quality loop: facilitating improvement in oncology practice through timely access to clinical performance indicators. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(5):e255-e261. doi:10.1200/JOP.2012.000818.
21. Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, et al. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99(8):517-524. doi:10.1002/jso.21282.
22. Lankshear S, Srigley J, McGowan T, Yurcan M, Sawka C. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reports - so what and who cares?: a population-based satisfaction survey of 970 pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(11):1599-1602. doi:10.5858/arpa.2012-0656-OA.
23. Report on the Reporting Pathology Protocols for Colon and Rectum Cancers Project. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP); 2005:1-124.
24. Hassell L, Aldinger W, Moody C, et al. Electronic capture and communication of synoptic cancer data elements from pathology reports: results of the Reporting Pathology Protocols 2 (RPP2) project. J Regist Manag. 2009;36(4):117-124; quiz 163-165.
25. Hassell LA, Parwani AV, Weiss L, Jones MA, Ye J. Challenges and opportunities in the adoption of College of American Pathologists checklists in electronic format: perspectives and experience of Reporting Pathology Protocols Project (RPP2) participant laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(8):1152-1159. doi:10.1043/2009-0386-OA.1.
26. Human Genome Variation Society. Nomenclature for the description of sequence variants. http://www.hgvs.org/mutnomen/. Accessed February 6, 2014.
27. Taschner PEM, den Dunnen JT. Describing structural changes by extending HGVS sequence variation nomenclature. Hum Mutat. 2011;32(5):507-511. doi:10.1002/humu.21427.
28. Den Dunnen JT, Antonarakis SE. Mutation nomenclature extensions and suggestions to describe complex mutations: a discussion. Hum Mutat. 2000;15(1):7-12. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-1004(200001)15:1〈7::AID-HUMU4〉3.0.CO;2-N.
29. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB, et al. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(6):828-860. doi:10.5858/arpa.2012-0720-OA.
30. Robb JA, Gulley ML, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. A call to standardize preanalytic data elements for biospecimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(4):526-537.
31. Scully RE, Henson DE, Nielsen ML, Ruby SG. Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with ovarian tumors: a basis for checklists: Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists: task force on the examination of specimens removed from patients with ovarian tumors. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119(11):1012-1022.
32. Simpson PR, Tschang TP. ADASP recommendations: consultations in surgical pathology: Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Hum Pathol. 1993;24(12):1382.
33. Immediate management of mammographically detected breast lesions: Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993;17(8):850-851.
34. Recommendations of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, part II: consultations in surgical pathology. Hum Pathol. 1993;24(7):691-692.
35. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in surgical pathology and autopsy pathology: the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Mod Pathol. 1992;5(5):567-568.
36. Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in anatomic pathology: Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15(10):1007-1009.
37. Compton CC, Henson DE, Hammond EH, Schramm JB, eds. Reporting on Cancer Specimens: Protocols and Case Summaries. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; 1998.
38. College of American Pathologists. CAP cancer protocols frequently asked questions. http://www.cap.org/apps//cap.portal?-nfpb=true&cntvwrPtlt-actionOverride=%2Fportlets%2FcontentViewer%2Fshow&-windowLabel=cntvwrPtlt&cntvwrPtlt%7BactionForm.contentReference%7D=committees%2Fcancer%2Fcancer-protocols%2Fprotocols-intro.html&-state=maximized&-pageLabel=cntvwr. Accessed February 6, 2014.
39. Klein WT, Havener LA, eds. Standards for Cancer Registries Volume V: Pathology Laboratory Electronic Reporting, Version 4.0. Springfield, IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries; 2011:1-310.
40. Fitzgibbons PL, Lazar AJ, Spencer S. Introducing new College of American Pathologists reporting templates for cancer biomarkers. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(2):157-158. doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0233-ED.
41. Amin MB. The 2009 version of the cancer protocols of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(3):326-330. doi:10.1043/1543-2165-134.3.326.