Literature DB >> 25234197

The impact of standard protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting.

Peter Ihnát1, Patricie Delongová, Jaroslav Horáček, Lucia Ihnát Rudinská, Petr Vávra, Pavel Zonča.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to assess the influence of standardized protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer histopathology reporting.
METHODS: A standardized protocol was created based on the recommendations of The College of American Pathologists. The impact of this protocol was measured by comparing frequencies of assessed parameters in histopathology reports before and after implementation.
RESULTS: In total, 177 histopathology reports were included in this study. The numbers of harvested lymph nodes were 12.4 ± 5.2 (colon) and 12.6 ± 5.4 (rectum) before protocol; and 17.1 ± 6.5 (colon), and 16.6 ± 7.0 after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. The recommended minimum of 12 lymph nodes was not achieved in 42.8 % (colon) and 45.7 % (rectum) of specimens before, and in 10.4 % (colon) and 17.7 % (rectum) of specimens after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. There were no differences in histopathology assessment of proximal and distal resection margins, grading assessment, TNM staging recording, and number of positive findings of microscopic tumor aggressiveness. The findings of tumor budding, tumor satellites, and assessment of microscopic tumor aggressiveness were more frequent after protocol implementation. Histopathology reports of rectal specimens contained assessments of the macroscopic quality of mesorectum, circumferential resection margin, and neoadjuvant therapy effect (if administered) only after protocol introduction.
CONCLUSIONS: A standardized protocol is a valuable and effective tool for improving the quality of histopathology reporting. Its implementation is associated with more precise specimen evaluation, higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and improved completeness of histopathology reports.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25234197     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2796-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  23 in total

1.  Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  A Wibe; P R Rendedal; E Svensson; J Norstein; T J Eide; H E Myrvold; O Søreide
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 2.  Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review.

Authors:  George J Chang; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; John M Skibber; Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Number of lymph nodes examined and prognosis of TNM stage II colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Leopoldo Sarli; Giovanni Bader; Domenico Iusco; Carlo Salvemini; Davide Di Mauro; Antonio Mazzeo; Gabriele Regina; Luigi Roncoroni
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Colorectal cancer pathology reporting: a regional audit.

Authors:  A D Bull; A H Biffin; J Mella; A G Radcliffe; J D Stamatakis; R J Steele; G T Williams
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Standard protocol for assessment of colon cancer improves the quality of pathology.

Authors:  P Buchwald; F Olofsson; E Lörinc; I Syk
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.788

6.  Quantitating the impact of stage migration on staging accuracy in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Jukes Namm; Melody Ng; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; John W Morgan; Sharon S Lum; Jan H Wong
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer.

Authors:  A R Feinstein; D M Sosin; C K Wells
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-06-20       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The influence of the number of retrieved lymph nodes on staging and survival in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing tumor-specific mesorectal excision.

Authors:  Young-Wan Kim; Nam-Kyu Kim; Byung-Soh Min; Kang-Young Lee; Seung-Kook Sohn; Chang-Hwan Cho
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Factors affecting the number of lymph nodes retrieved in colorectal cancer specimens.

Authors:  Michelle A Ostadi; Julie L Harnish; Stacey Stegienko; David R Urbach
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Adequacy of nodal harvest in colorectal cancer: a consecutive cohort study.

Authors:  Paul M Johnson; Dickram Malatjalian; Geoff A Porter
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.267

View more
  4 in total

1.  Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection.

Authors:  Peter Ihnát; Petra Guňková; Matúš Peteja; Petr Vávra; Anton Pelikán; Pavel Zonča
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Automated Generation of Synoptic Reports from Narrative Pathology Reports in University Malaya Medical Centre Using Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  Wee-Ming Tan; Kean-Hooi Teoh; Mogana Darshini Ganggayah; Nur Aishah Taib; Hana Salwani Zaini; Sarinder Kaur Dhillon
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-01

3.  Identification of barriers and facilitators in nationwide implementation of standardized structured reporting in pathology: a mixed method study.

Authors:  J E M Swillens; C E Sluijter; L I H Overbeek; I D Nagtegaal; R P M G Hermens
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 4.  The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review.

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.