BACKGROUND: Accurately determining margin status is important for breast cancer treatment. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed guidelines to standardize reporting of margin status. The aim of this study is to determine statewide concordance with CAP breast cancer reporting guidelines for margin status. METHODS: The Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (VBCSS) tracks mammography-related services provided to all women treated for breast cancer at hospitals in Vermont. These data include accompanying pathology reports, which were analyzed for descriptions of margin status. The CAP protocols have both requirements and recommendations for margin status reporting. Reports were "minimally compliant" if they adhered to the requirements stated in the CAP protocols or "maximally compliant" if they included the recommended protocols in addition to those required. RESULTS: There were 2,016 reports that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 71.1% were minimally compliant and 37.3% were maximally compliant with the CAP guideline standards. There was a statistically significant rise in compliant reports, with minimally compliant reports increasing from 55.7% in 1998 to 79.3% in 2006, and maximally compliant reports rising from 4.7% in 1998 to 53.7% in 2006 (χ(2) trend test, P < 0.001) for both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of margin status in breast-conserving surgery varies widely. There is a significant rise in guideline compliance with margin status reporting from 1998 to 2006; however, overall compliance remains suboptimal. This study provides evidence to support the need for quality improvement measures in the implementation of CAP guidelines for reporting margin status following breast-conserving surgery.
BACKGROUND: Accurately determining margin status is important for breast cancer treatment. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed guidelines to standardize reporting of margin status. The aim of this study is to determine statewide concordance with CAP breast cancer reporting guidelines for margin status. METHODS: The Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System (VBCSS) tracks mammography-related services provided to all women treated for breast cancer at hospitals in Vermont. These data include accompanying pathology reports, which were analyzed for descriptions of margin status. The CAP protocols have both requirements and recommendations for margin status reporting. Reports were "minimally compliant" if they adhered to the requirements stated in the CAP protocols or "maximally compliant" if they included the recommended protocols in addition to those required. RESULTS: There were 2,016 reports that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 71.1% were minimally compliant and 37.3% were maximally compliant with the CAP guideline standards. There was a statistically significant rise in compliant reports, with minimally compliant reports increasing from 55.7% in 1998 to 79.3% in 2006, and maximally compliant reports rising from 4.7% in 1998 to 53.7% in 2006 (χ(2) trend test, P < 0.001) for both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of margin status in breast-conserving surgery varies widely. There is a significant rise in guideline compliance with margin status reporting from 1998 to 2006; however, overall compliance remains suboptimal. This study provides evidence to support the need for quality improvement measures in the implementation of CAP guidelines for reporting margin status following breast-conserving surgery.
Authors: I Gage; S J Schnitt; A J Nixon; B Silver; A Recht; S L Troyan; T Eberlein; S M Love; R Gelman; J R Harris; J L Connolly Journal: Cancer Date: 1996-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan C Lester; Shikha Bose; Yunn-Yi Chen; James L Connolly; Monica E de Baca; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Daniel F Hayes; Celina Kleer; Frances P O'Malley; David L Page; Barbara L Smith; Lee K Tan; Donald L Weaver; Eric Winer Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: N Bijker; J L Peterse; L Duchateau; J P Julien; I S Fentiman; C Duval; S Di Palma; J Simony-Lafontaine; I de Mascarel; M J van de Vijver Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C C Park; M Mitsumori; A Nixon; A Recht; J Connolly; R Gelman; B Silver; S Hetelekidis; A Abner; J R Harris; S J Schnitt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Neal W Wilkinson; Azin Shahryarinejad; Janet S Winston; Nancy Watroba; Stephen B Edge Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah Persing; Mairin A Jerome; Ted A James; Peter Callas; John Mace; Michelle Sowden; Andrew Goodwin; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague Journal: Breast Date: 2015-07-18 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Lisanne de Boer; Esther Kho; Jasper Nijkamp; Koen Van de Vijver; Henricus J C Sterenborg; Leon Ter Beek; Theo J Ruers Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.170