PURPOSE: Randomized multicenter trials form the basis of health care development. Regarding cancer research, pathology data are crucial. To maintain the quality of these trials, the auditing of subsequent processes is necessary. The aim of the present study was to examine the completeness and accuracy of data obtained from a special-purpose standardized pathology form compared with the data available through traditional hospital pathology reports. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparison of pathology data case record forms with hospital pathology reports was performed using the data from 300 patients with primary rectal cancer. All of these patients had been included in a large multicenter trial in the Netherlands. Three independent audits were carried out. Special attention was given to the accuracy of parameters, which are important for prognosis and treatment decisions. Furthermore, various factors that possibly influence the occurrence of errors were investigated. RESULTS: Quality control of the pathology data revealed a high accuracy of 86.5% of all data items. However, only one third of the forms were complete and correct. Missing values were most prominent in the number of lymph nodes examined, whereas most errors were made in relation to the circumferential margin. Trained review pathologists made fewer major errors. Discrepancies were detected in all control rounds. CONCLUSION: Successive rounds of quality control are required for accuracy and completeness of pathology data in multicenter trials. In addition to the special-purpose pathology forms, original pathology reports have to be collected, and the data should also be controlled by a trained pathology quality manager.
PURPOSE: Randomized multicenter trials form the basis of health care development. Regarding cancer research, pathology data are crucial. To maintain the quality of these trials, the auditing of subsequent processes is necessary. The aim of the present study was to examine the completeness and accuracy of data obtained from a special-purpose standardized pathology form compared with the data available through traditional hospital pathology reports. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparison of pathology data case record forms with hospital pathology reports was performed using the data from 300 patients with primary rectal cancer. All of these patients had been included in a large multicenter trial in the Netherlands. Three independent audits were carried out. Special attention was given to the accuracy of parameters, which are important for prognosis and treatment decisions. Furthermore, various factors that possibly influence the occurrence of errors were investigated. RESULTS: Quality control of the pathology data revealed a high accuracy of 86.5% of all data items. However, only one third of the forms were complete and correct. Missing values were most prominent in the number of lymph nodes examined, whereas most errors were made in relation to the circumferential margin. Trained review pathologists made fewer major errors. Discrepancies were detected in all control rounds. CONCLUSION: Successive rounds of quality control are required for accuracy and completeness of pathology data in multicenter trials. In addition to the special-purpose pathology forms, original pathology reports have to be collected, and the data should also be controlled by a trained pathology quality manager.
Authors: Runjan Chetty; Pelvender Gill; Dhirendra Govender; Adrian Bateman; Hee Jin Chang; David Driman; Fraser Duthie; Marisa Gomez; Eleanor Jaynes; Cheok Soon Lee; Michael Locketz; Claudia Mescoli; Corwyn Rowsell; Anne Rullier; Stefano Serra; Neil Shepherd; Eva Szentgyorgyi; Rajkumar Vajpeyi; Lai Mun Wang Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Angelita Habr-Gama; Guilherme P São Julião; Adrian Mattacheo; Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Edgar Aleman; Bruna B Vailati; Joaquim Gama-Rodrigues; Rodrigo Oliva Perez Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: I D Nagtegaal; C G S Gaspar; L T C Peltenburg; C A M Marijnen; E Kapiteijn; C J H van de Velde; R Fodde; J H J M van Krieken Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2004-12-16 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: P Hermanek; P Hermanek; W Hohenberger; M Klimpfinger; F Köckerling; T Papadopoulos Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2003-02-14 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Femke Vlems; Erik van der Worp; Jeroen van der Laak; Cornelis van de Velde; Iris Nagtegaal; Han van Krieken Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2004-05-28 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: I D Nagtegaal; C A Marijnen; E K Kranenbarg; A Mulder-Stapel; J Hermans; C J van de Velde; J H van Krieken Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2001-07-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Frank M Speetjens; Elza C de Bruin; Hans Morreau; Eliane C M Zeestraten; Hein Putter; J Han van Krieken; Maaike M van Buren; Monique van Velzen; N Geeske Dekker-Ensink; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Peter J K Kuppen Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 6.968