A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting

被引:15
|
作者
Woods, Y. L. [1 ]
Mukhtar, S. [1 ]
McClements, P. [2 ]
Lang, J. [2 ]
Steele, R. J. [1 ]
Carey, F. A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dundee, Ninewells Hosp & Med Sch, Dept Pathol, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland
[2] Natl Serv Scotland, NHS Informat Serv Div, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
关键词
PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; RECTAL-CANCER; PERITONEAL INVOLVEMENT; ADJUVANT TREATMENT; VENOUS INVASION; RESECTION; TUMOR; FLUOROURACIL; PATHOLOGIST; CARCINOMA;
D O I
10.1136/jclinpath-2013-202060
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Aims The main purpose of the study was to present a baseline audit of reporting of colorectal cancers resection specimens in Scotland, audited against the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) standards (2007) and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS) standards. Methods 50 consecutive rectal and 50 consecutive colonic cancer cases from 2011 were audited from 10 Scottish health boards involved in colorectal cancer reporting (n=953). The rates of reporting of serosal involvement, extramural venous invasion (EMVI) and the mean numbers of lymph nodes found were audited against RCPath standards and compared between units that routinely used a reporting proforma versus those that did not. Results The performance in reporting of rectal cancer was generally worse than for colonic cancer, with only three units meeting the RCPath standards for reporting of rectal cancer. There were significant differences between units that routinely used a proforma, with the non-proforma group failing to meet the minimum standards for both serosal involvement (6%) and EMVI (24%). In the non-proforma group, 56% of rectal cases had a mean lymph node count of 12 or more compared with 81% in the proforma group. Conclusions Significant differences exist in the frequencies with which important adverse prognostic features are reported by pathologists across 10 Scottish health boards. This has potential implications for patient care. Health boards that make routine use of reporting proformas are more likely to meet RCPath guidelines for reporting of these important pathological parameters.
引用
收藏
页码:499 / 505
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] REPORTING COLORECTAL-CANCER - REPLY
    JASS, JR
    MORSON, BC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 1988, 41 (03) : 358 - 358
  • [32] Colorectal Cancer Pathology Reporting in 2010
    Curran, O. E.
    Finlayson, C. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2012, 226 : S18 - S18
  • [33] Are We Following Royal College Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Reporting? A Completion of Audit Cycle
    Gopalakrishnan, K.
    Azam, A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2013, 231 : 26 - 26
  • [34] EVALUATION OF REPORTING METHODS OF PROSTATE CANCER GUIDELINES
    Pashazadeh, Fariba
    Pashazadeh, F.
    Sadeghi-Ghyassi, F.
    Fathifar, Z.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 21 : A200 - A200
  • [35] Lung cancer specimen guidelines for handling and reporting
    Bamefleh, Hanaa
    [J]. ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE, 2008, 3 (06) : S68 - S73
  • [37] Breast cancer pathology reporting practice and guidelines
    Page, DL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2003, 196 (01) : 89 - 90
  • [38] Dataset for Pathology Reporting of Colorectal Cancer: Recommendations From the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)
    Loughrey, Maurice B.
    Webster, Fleur
    Arends, Mark J.
    Brown, Ian
    Burgart, Lawrence J.
    Cunningham, Chris
    Flejou, Jean-Francois
    Kakar, Sanjay
    Kirsch, Richard
    Kojima, Motohiro
    Lugli, Alessandro
    Rosty, Christophe
    Sheahan, Kieran
    West, Nicholas P.
    Wilson, Richard H.
    Nagtegaal, Iris D.
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2022, 275 (03) : E549 - E561
  • [39] The effect of journal guidelines on the reporting of antibody validation
    Hoek, Joyce M.
    Hepkema, Wytske M.
    Halffman, Willem
    [J]. PEERJ, 2020, 8
  • [40] Colorectal cancer reporting: Are we failing the patient?
    Shepherd, NA
    Quirke, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 1997, 50 (04) : 266 - 267