Literature DB >> 17707261

Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma.

Jonathan I Epstein1, John Srigley, David Grignon, Peter Humphrey.   

Abstract

It has been evident for decades that pathology reports are very variable even within a single institution. Standardization of reporting is the optimal way to insure that information necessary for patient management, prognostic and predictive factor assessment, grading, staging, analysis of outcomes, and tumor registries are included in pathology reports. The ADASP has chosen a pathologist expert in each field to assemble a group from within the pathology community (with clinician input if desired) to write specific cancer protocols. These were then approved by the ADASP council and subsequently by the membership. The American College of Surgery Commission on Cancer (COC) accredits cancer centers in the United States. Recently, the COC decided to require elements, deemed as essential by the CAP, to be described in all pathology reports in their accredited cancer centers as of January 2004. Importantly, they do not require that the specific College of Pathologists (CAP) protocols or synoptic reports be used. ADASP has updated all of its protocols to comply with the COC requirements in the form of uniform checklists. The checklists use the staging criteria cited in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 2002 staging manual (sixth edition) but include a variety of other references listed in each of the checklists. Moreover, the checklists are formatted for ease of use. They may be used as templates for uniform reporting and are designed to be compatible with voice-activated transcription. The different elements in these revised ADASP diagnostic checklists have been divided into Required and Optional. The term Required in this context only signifies compliance with the COC guidelines. ADASP realizes that specimens and practices vary, and it will not be possible to report these elements in every case. However, ADASP hopes that pathologists will find these checklists useful in daily clinical practice while facilitating compliance with the new COC requirements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17707261     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2007.05.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  7 in total

1.  Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason Grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours.

Authors:  Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Jelle O Barentsz; Luiz Carlos Duarte de Miranda; Emerson Leandro Gasparetto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Interobserver variability in histologic evaluation of radical prostatectomy between central and local pathologists: findings of TAX 3501 multinational clinical trial.

Authors:  George J Netto; Mario Eisenberger; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  An Advanced but Traditional Technique of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Order not to Overlook Stage T1 Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Masaru Morita; Takeshi Matsuura
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2012-04-30

4.  Clinical map document based on XML (cMDX): document architecture with mapping feature for reporting and analysing prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Okyaz Eminaga; Reemt Hinkelammert; Axel Semjonow; Joerg Neumann; Mahmoud Abbas; Thomas Koepke; Olaf Bettendorf; Elke Eltze; Martin Dugas
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-11-15       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 5.  Current approaches, challenges and future directions for monitoring treatment response in prostate cancer.

Authors:  T J Wallace; T Torre; M Grob; J Yu; I Avital; Bldm Brücher; A Stojadinovic; Y G Man
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 4.207

6.  Metabolic syndrome is associated with advanced prostate cancer in patients treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy: results from a multicentre prospective study.

Authors:  Cosimo De Nunzio; Giuseppe Simone; Aldo Brassetti; Riccardo Mastroianni; Devis Collura; Giovanni Muto; Michele Gallucci; Andrea Tubaro
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Can the completeness of radiological cancer staging reports be improved using proforma reporting? A prospective multicentre non-blinded interventional study across 21 centres in the UK.

Authors:  Anisha Patel; Andrea Rockall; Ashley Guthrie; Fergus Gleeson; Sylvia Worthy; Sisa Grubnic; David Burling; Clare Allen; Anwar Padhani; Brendan Carey; Peter Cavanagh; Michael D Peake; Gina Brown
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.