Pathology reporting is evolving from a traditional narrative report to a more structured synoptic report. Narrative reporting can cause misinterpretation due to lack of information and structure. In this systematic review, we evaluate the impact of synoptic reporting on completeness of pathology reports and quality of pathology evaluation for solid tumours. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies describing the effect of synoptic reporting implementation on completeness of reporting and quality of pathology evaluation of solid malignant tumours. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies, except one, reported an increased overall completeness of pathology reports after introduction of synoptic reporting (SR). Most frequently studied cancers were breast (n = 9) and colorectal cancer (n = 16). For breast cancer, narrative reports adequately described ‘tumour type’ and ‘nodal status’. Synoptic reporting resulted in improved description of ‘resection margins’, ‘DCIS size’, ‘location’ and ‘presence of calcifications’. For colorectal cancer, narrative reports adequately reported ‘tumour type’, ‘invasion depth’, ‘lymph node counts’ and ‘nodal status’. Synoptic reporting resulted in increased reporting of ‘circumferential margin’, ‘resection margin’, ‘perineural invasion’ and ‘lymphovascular invasion’. In addition, increased numbers of reported lymph nodes were found in synoptic reports. Narrative reports of other cancer types described the traditional parameters adequately, whereas for ‘resection margins’ and ‘(lympho)vascular/perineural invasion’, implementation of synoptic reporting was necessary. Synoptic reporting results in improved reporting of clinical relevant data. Demonstration of clinical impact of this improved method of pathology reporting is required for successful introduction and implementation in daily pathology practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00428-016-1935-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PURPOSE The use of standardized structured reporting (SSR) can improve communication between cancer specialists, which might improve clinical care; however, there are no reliable data on whether the introduction of SSR is associated with improvements in clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands, including all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) from 2009 to 2014. As a reference, cohorts of 2007 and 2008 were included. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used and combined with data from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. We tested the preformulated hypothesis that use of SSR improves the care of patients with CRC by improving the completeness of the pathology reports, the quality of the pathology evaluation, and patient outcomes with respect to treatment and survival. RESULTS We included 72,859 patients with CRC (23.8% reference, 32.9% SSR, and 43.3% narrative reports). Use of SSR increased over time, which resulted in more complete pathology reports (95.8% v 89.8%; P < .001). Risk assessment in stage II colon cancer was more adequate and resulted in an increased delivery of adjuvant therapy in patients with SSR (19.6% v 15.1%; P = .001). Risk of death for patients in the SSR group was significantly lowered (corrected hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.97). CONCLUSION We demonstrate that use of SSR improved patient care in those with CRC by providing more complete reports of higher quality, which had significant effects on the delivery of adjuvant therapy and patient outcomes.

Standardized structured reporting (SSR) enables high-quality pathology reporting, but implementing SSR is slow. The objective of this study is to identify both barriers and facilitators that pathologists encounter in SSR, in order to develop tailored implementation tools to increase SSR usage. We used a mixed method design: a focus group interview helped to identify barriers and facilitators in SSR. The findings were classified into the following domains: innovation, individual professional, social setting, organization, and economic and political context. We used a web-based survey among Dutch pathologists to quantify the findings. Ten pathologists participated in the focus group interview, and 97 pathologists completed the survey. The results of both showed that pathologists perceive barriers related to SSR itself. Particularly its incompatibility caused lack of nuance (73%, n = 97) in the standardized structured pathology report. Regarding the individual professional, knowledge about available SSR-templates was lacking (28%, n = 97), and only 44% (n = 94) of the respondents agreed that using SSR facilitates the most accurate diagnosis. Related to social setting, support from the multidisciplinary team members was lacking (45%, n = 94). At organization level, SSR leads to extra work (52%, n = 94) because of its incompatibility with other information systems (38%, n = 93). Main facilitators of SSR were incorporation of speech recognition (54%, n = 94) and improvement in communication during multidisciplinary team meetings (69%, n = 94). Both barriers and facilitators existed in various domains. These factors can be used to develop implementation tools to encourage SSR usage.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00428-019-02609-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We observed considerable interlaboratory variation in the grading of dysplasia in colorectal adenomas, which could be only partly explained by differences in case mix. Therefore, better standardization of grading criteria is needed before grade of dysplasia can usefully be incorporated in colonoscopy surveillance guidelines.