AIM: To determine whether the introduction of a standard reporting proforma has led to an improvement in the completeness of histopathology reports for breast cancer excision specimens. METHODS: A standard reporting proforma was designed using the Royal College of Pathologists' minimum dataset for breast cancer histopathology reports and the national histopathology reporting form of the National Health Service (NHS) breast screening programme. This was introduced into our department in June 1999, with reports generated from the proforma replacing the standard text reports. The pathological information contained in 50 text reports issued before the introduction of the proforma and 50 reports generated using the proforma was compared with the minimum dataset and NHS breast screening programme guidelines. RESULTS: A general improvement in documentation of individual pathological features was noted after introduction of the proforma. This was most significant in relation to documentation of features, such as microcalcification and ductal carcinoma in situ. In addition, important features such as tumour grade, tumour size, and hormone receptor status were documented more frequently in the proforma group. There was an overall increase in the number of reports regarded as complete after introduction of the proforma. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a standard proforma led to a significant improvement in the completeness of breast cancer histopathology reports in this centre, but continued vigilance is needed to ensure that standards continue to improve.
AIM: To determine whether the introduction of a standard reporting proforma has led to an improvement in the completeness of histopathology reports for breast cancer excision specimens. METHODS: A standard reporting proforma was designed using the Royal College of Pathologists' minimum dataset for breast cancer histopathology reports and the national histopathology reporting form of the National Health Service (NHS) breast screening programme. This was introduced into our department in June 1999, with reports generated from the proforma replacing the standard text reports. The pathological information contained in 50 text reports issued before the introduction of the proforma and 50 reports generated using the proforma was compared with the minimum dataset and NHS breast screening programme guidelines. RESULTS: A general improvement in documentation of individual pathological features was noted after introduction of the proforma. This was most significant in relation to documentation of features, such as microcalcification and ductal carcinoma in situ. In addition, important features such as tumour grade, tumour size, and hormone receptor status were documented more frequently in the proforma group. There was an overall increase in the number of reports regarded as complete after introduction of the proforma. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a standard proforma led to a significant improvement in the completeness of breast cancer histopathology reports in this centre, but continued vigilance is needed to ensure that standards continue to improve.
Authors: O Burgués; Mª Á López-García; B Pérez-Míes; P Santiago; B Vieites; J F García; V Peg Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Andrew Churg; Richard Attanoos; Alain C Borczuk; Lucian R Chirieac; Françoise Galateau-Sallé; Allen Gibbs; Douglas Henderson; Victor Roggli; Valerie Rusch; Meagan J Judge; John R Srigley Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Caro E Sluijter; Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen; Henk-Jan van Slooten; Iris D Nagtegaal; Lucy I H Overbeek Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Iain Phillips; Veni Ezhil; Mohammad Hussein; Christopher South; Andrew Nisbet; Sheaka Alobaidli; Vineet Prakash; Mazhar Ajaz; Helen Wang; Philip Evans Journal: BJR Open Date: 2019-04-29