OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate whether current nephrectomy pathology reports are sufficient to allow clinicians to use prognostic nomograms, tailor surveillance, enroll patients into adjuvant trials and select systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Nephrectomy pathology reports were obtained from the LA County Tumor Registry. Key reporting elements identified by the College of American Pathology (CAP) and utilized in RCC prognostic models were abstracted. Hospital type was coded as community, teaching or cancer centre. • Reporting quality was assessed across hospital type and year. RESULTS: • A total of 317 of 344 sampled reports (92.2%) met the inclusion criteria. Tumour size and margin status were commonly reported. Some 90.2% and 84.2% of reports provided data on histology and Fuhrman grade. Tumour classification was omitted in 27.8%. • Microvascular invasion and necrosis were infrequently reported (44.5% and 25.6%, respectively). Only 59.9% of reports met CAP guidelines for tumour classification, margin, size, histology and grade. • Two prognostic nomograms (Stage, Size, Grade and Necrosis system and Kattan) could rarely be utilized (15.8% and 12.3%, respectively), whereas the UCLA Integrated Staging System could be used frequently (65.6%). There were discrepancies satisfying CAP guidelines between community, teaching and cancer centre hospitals, with 54.7%, 70.5% and 75% of reports meeting CAP criteria (P= 0.0102). CONCLUSIONS: • Current RCC pathology reporting fails to satisfy CAP guidelines, does not permit the use of prognostic systems, and may hinder enrollment into adjuvant trials and the selection of systemic therapy. Important reporting discrepancies exist between hospital types, with cancer centres performing best. • Quality improvement initiatives to encourage consistent, comprehensive and clinically relevant pathology reports would improve the quality of RCC patient care.
OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate whether current nephrectomy pathology reports are sufficient to allow clinicians to use prognostic nomograms, tailor surveillance, enroll patients into adjuvant trials and select systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Nephrectomy pathology reports were obtained from the LA County Tumor Registry. Key reporting elements identified by the College of American Pathology (CAP) and utilized in RCC prognostic models were abstracted. Hospital type was coded as community, teaching or cancer centre. • Reporting quality was assessed across hospital type and year. RESULTS: • A total of 317 of 344 sampled reports (92.2%) met the inclusion criteria. Tumour size and margin status were commonly reported. Some 90.2% and 84.2% of reports provided data on histology and Fuhrman grade. Tumour classification was omitted in 27.8%. • Microvascular invasion and necrosis were infrequently reported (44.5% and 25.6%, respectively). Only 59.9% of reports met CAP guidelines for tumour classification, margin, size, histology and grade. • Two prognostic nomograms (Stage, Size, Grade and Necrosis system and Kattan) could rarely be utilized (15.8% and 12.3%, respectively), whereas the UCLA Integrated Staging System could be used frequently (65.6%). There were discrepancies satisfying CAP guidelines between community, teaching and cancer centre hospitals, with 54.7%, 70.5% and 75% of reports meeting CAP criteria (P= 0.0102). CONCLUSIONS: • Current RCC pathology reporting fails to satisfy CAP guidelines, does not permit the use of prognostic systems, and may hinder enrollment into adjuvant trials and the selection of systemic therapy. Important reporting discrepancies exist between hospital types, with cancer centres performing best. • Quality improvement initiatives to encourage consistent, comprehensive and clinically relevant pathology reports would improve the quality of RCCpatient care.
Authors: Brian Shuch; Jonathan N Hofmann; Maria J Merino; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; W Marston Linehan; Kendra Schwartz; Julie J Ruterbusch; Joanne S Colt; Mark P Purdue; Wong-Ho Chow Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Brian Shuch; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna Shih; Srinivas Vourganti; David Finley; Brandon Castor; Eric Treat; W Marston Linehan; Allan J Pantuck; Jonathan W Said; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jose A Karam; A Ari Hakimi; Kyle A Blum; Sounak Gupta; Satish K Tickoo; Timothy A Chan; Paul Russo; Robert J Motzer Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 14.432