Does the caseload of the pathologist influence the minimum and extended data set of pathology variables reported for rectal adenocarcinoma?

Hatzidis,; Solomon,; Schnitzler,; Cartmill,; Loder,; Chapuis,

doi:10.1046/j.1463-1318.2000.00081.x

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Decreased adhesiveness of cancer cells in these poorly differentiated tumors was proposed. 12,13 In this study, like the previous study, tumors that 15 Few studies have analyzed peritoneal cytology and compared this with cancer-specific survival. In the study by Horratas et al, all of the patients who had positive peritoneal cytology had advanced disease and died between four and ten months after surgery, much earlier than patients with negative washing cytology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Free Colorectal Cancer Cells on the Peritoneal Surface: Correlation With Pathologic Variables and Survival

Baskaranathan

Philips

McCredden

et al. 2004

Diseases of the Colon &Amp; Rectum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Free Colorectal Cancer Cells on the Peritoneal Surface: Correlation With Pathologic Variables and Survival

Baskaranathan

Philips

McCredden

et al. 2004

Diseases of the Colon &Amp; Rectum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequent studies have emphasized the importance of synoptic (structured, proforma) reporting in areas of colorectal [12][13][14][15][16][17], breast [15,18,19], lung [20], melanoma [21], and hematolymphoid malignancy [22]. The completeness of reporting and ease of use of the information are points emphasized in these articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population‐based approach

Srigley

McGowan

MacLean

et al. 2009

Journal of Surgical Oncology

170

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer pathology reports contain information which is critical for patient management and for cancer surveillance, resource planning, and quality purposes. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has defined scientifically validated content of checklists that form the basis for synoptic cancer pathology reporting. We outline how the CAP standards were implemented in a large Canadian province over a 3-year period resulting in improvements in rates of synoptic reporting and completeness of cancer pathology reporting.J. Surg. Oncol. 2009;99:517-524. ß 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. KEY WORDS: cancer pathology; standardization; synoptics; population study; outcomes INTRODUCTIONThe great majority of cancers are diagnosed through the combined efforts of surgeons and pathologists. A clear and thorough recording of the surgical and pathological findings allows assessment of diagnosis and prognosis, and thus facilitates treatment decisions for patients. In recent years, the complexity of cancer pathology reporting has significantly increased. The adequate surgical pathology report not only documents the presence and accurate typing of cancer but also contains information related to tumor grade, size, local extent, vessel involvement, marginal status along with other morphologic and sometimes ancillary results including tumor markers. In some tumor types, for instance breast cancer, the list of carcinoma descriptors can be quite daunting [1].There are four essential elements of quality in cancer pathology reporting: timeliness, accuracy, completeness, and usability. The timeliness or turnaround time of a cancer pathology report is clearly important as is the accuracy of the diagnostic and prognostic observations. The completeness of a cancer pathology report relative to an accepted standard is also an important reflection of overall quality. Cancer pathology reports should be timely, correct, and contain all the relevant information required for diagnosis, prognosis, and further treatment decisions. A fourth dimension of quality is the usability or accessibility of the data in the report.There is a spectrum of cancer pathology reporting which is shown in Table I. The range includes simple narrative reporting using a single text field of data without mandatory scientifically validated data elements as defined by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) (level 1 reporting) to sophisticated synoptic reporting with drop down menus, standardized language, discrete data fields, and automated ICD-O and/or SNOMED CT encoding (level 6). In practice most cancer pathology reports lie somewhere in the middle.Cancer pathology reports given in a synoptic format are intuitively easier to decipher than ones that are presented in a narrative or paragraphic style, minimizing the risk of misinterpretation and clinical error. Synoptic reporting can save time since all important diagnostic and prognostic factors are laid out in a list or table with headers and responses rather than being buried in paragraphic text fields. While cancer patholog...

show abstract

“…Several studies have documented the benefits of structured synoptic cancer pathology reports, including the elimination of missing information, [1][2][3][4] increased completeness and accessibility of information, [5][6][7][8][9] improved information to support clinical decision making and for research purposes, 3,[10][11][12][13] and increased clinician satisfaction. [14][15][16][17] The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of standardized synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction regarding process (eg, timeliness and completeness) and practice (eg, clinical decision making).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized Synoptic Cancer Pathology Reports — So What and Who Cares?: A Population-Based Satisfaction Survey of 970 Pathologists, Surgeons, and Oncologists

Lankshear

Srigley

McGowan

et al. 2013

Archives of Pathology &Amp; Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Care Ontario implemented synoptic pathology reporting across Ontario, impacting the practice of pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. The benefits of standardized synoptic pathology reporting include enhanced completeness and improved consistency in comparison with narrative reports, with reported challenges including increased workload and report turnaround time.Objective.-To determine the impact of synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction specific to practice and process.Design.-A descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized involving 970 clinicians across 27 hospitals. An 11-item survey was developed to obtain information regarding timeliness, completeness, clarity, and usability. Open-ended questions were also employed to obtain qualitative comments.Results.-A 51% response rate was obtained, with descriptive statistics reporting that physicians perceive synoptic reports as significantly better than narrative reports. Correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong, positive relationship between respondents' perceptions of overall satisfaction with the level of information provided and perceptions of completeness for clinical decision making (r ¼ 0.750, P , .001) and ease of finding information for clinical decision making (r ¼ 0.663, P , .001). Dependent t tests showed a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of pathologists and oncologists (t 169 ¼ 3.044, P ¼ .003). Qualitative comments revealed technology-related issues as the most frequently cited factor impacting timeliness of report completion.Conclusion.-This study provides evidence of strong physician satisfaction with synoptic cancer pathology reporting as a clinical decision support tool in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients.(Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:1599-1602; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0656-OA) I n 2004, Cancer Care Ontario initiated a pathology reporting project aimed at improving the quality of cancer pathology by standardizing the content, format, and transmission of reports to the Ontario Cancer Registry. This large-scale, change-management project involved more than 400 Ontario pathologists and 100 hospitals producing more than 70 000 cancer pathology reports annually from a population of 12.9 million. Structured pathology reporting was implemented based on the nationally and provincially endorsed College of American Pathologists cancer pathology checklists, utilizing innovative electronic tools in hospital laboratory information systems linked by an electronic pathology network.Phase 1 of the project focused on the implementation of synoptic pathology reporting for resections pertaining to the 5 main disease site groups: lung, colorectal, prostate, endometrium, and breast. This accounted for approximately 70% of all surgical pathology reports and involved 33 hospitals across Ontario.High-quality, complete cancer pathology reports describing diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive elements are required for contemporary oncologic practice. Several stu...

show abstract

Does the caseload of the pathologist influence the minimum and extended data set of pathology variables reported for rectal adenocarcinoma?

Abstract: Standardized reporting, template proformas and perhaps dedicated gastrointestinal pathologists may improve reporting of surgical rectal cancer specimens.

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

Free Colorectal Cancer Cells on the Peritoneal Surface: Correlation With Pathologic Variables and Survival

Free Colorectal Cancer Cells on the Peritoneal Surface: Correlation With Pathologic Variables and Survival

Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population‐based approach

Standardized Synoptic Cancer Pathology Reports — So What and Who Cares?: A Population-Based Satisfaction Survey of 970 Pathologists, Surgeons, and Oncologists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About