Literature DB >> 28343306

The ins and outs of molecular pathology reporting.

Véronique Tack1, Kelly Dufraing1, Zandra C Deans2, Han J van Krieken3, Elisabeth M C Dequeker4.   

Abstract

The raid evolution in molecular pathology resulting in an increasing complexity requires careful reporting. The need for standardisation is clearer than ever. While synoptic reporting was first used for reporting hereditary genetic diseases, it is becoming more frequent in pathology, especially molecular pathology reports too. The narrative approach is no longer feasible with the growing amount of essential data present on the report, although narrative components are still necessary for interpretation in molecular pathology. On the way towards standardisation of reports, guidelines can be a helpful tool. There are several guidelines that focus on reporting in the field of hereditary diseases, but it is not always feasible to extrapolate these to the reporting of somatic variants in molecular pathology. The rise of multi-gene testing causes challenges for the laboratories. In order to provide a continuous optimisation of the laboratory testing process, including reporting, external quality assessment is essential and has already proven to improve the quality of reports. In general, a clear and concise report for molecular pathology can be created by including elements deemed important by different guidelines, adapting the report to the process flows of the laboratory and integrating the report with the laboratory information management system and the patient record.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Completeness; External quality assessment; Guideline; Molecular pathology; Reporting

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28343306     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-017-2108-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  59 in total

1.  Towards a European consensus for reporting incidental findings during clinical NGS testing.

Authors:  Jayne Y Hehir-Kwa; Mireille Claustres; Ros J Hastings; Conny van Ravenswaaij-Arts; Gabrielle Christenhusz; Maurizio Genuardi; Béla Melegh; Anne Cambon-Thomsen; Philippos Patsalis; Joris Vermeesch; Martina C Cornel; Beverly Searle; Aarno Palotie; Ettore Capoluongo; Borut Peterlin; Xavier Estivill; Peter N Robinson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 2.  Molecular pathology - the value of an integrative approach.

Authors:  Manuel Salto-Tellez; Jacqueline A James; Peter W Hamilton
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 6.603

Review 3.  Pathology report in colon cancer: what is prognostically important?

Authors:  C C Compton
Journal:  Dig Dis       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.404

4.  External quality assessment of BRAF molecular analysis in melanoma.

Authors:  Zandra C Deans; Andrew Wallace; Brendan O'Sullivan; Andrew Purvis; Suzanne Camus; Jennifer A Fairley; David Gonzalez
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Approach to biomarker testing: perspectives from various specialties.

Authors:  M R Sung; P M Ellis; S Verma; E Duncan; N B Leighl
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Factors that can make an impact on decision-making and decision implementation in cancer multidisciplinary teams: an interview study of the provider perspective.

Authors:  Rozh Jalil; Maria Ahmed; James S A Green; Nick Sevdalis
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 6.071

7.  Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach.

Authors:  John R Srigley; Tom McGowan; Andrea Maclean; Marilyn Raby; Jillian Ross; Sarah Kramer; Carol Sawka
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 8.  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

9.  Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Gert Matthijs; Erika Souche; Mariëlle Alders; Anniek Corveleyn; Sebastian Eck; Ilse Feenstra; Valérie Race; Erik Sistermans; Marc Sturm; Marjan Weiss; Helger Yntema; Egbert Bakker; Hans Scheffer; Peter Bauer
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  How close are we to standardised extended RAS gene mutation testing? The UK NEQAS evaluation.

Authors:  Susan D Richman; Jennifer Fairley; Rachel Butler; Zandra C Deans
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 2: Analysis, reporting, and quality assessment.

Authors:  Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Keith M Kerr; Pilar Garrido; Erik Thunnissen; Elisabeth Dequeker; Nicola Normanno; Simon J Patton; Jenni Fairley; Joshua Kapp; Daniëlle de Ridder; Aleš Ryška; Holger Moch
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.535

2.  Molecular pathology testing for non-small cell lung cancer: an observational study of elements currently present in request forms and result reports and the opinion of different stakeholders.

Authors:  Kelly Dufraing; Kaat Van Casteren; Joke Breyne; Nicky D'Haene; Claude Van Campenhout; Sara Vander Borght; Karen Zwaenepoel; Etienne Rouleau; Ed Schuuring; Jan von der Thüsen; Elisabeth Dequeker
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  International pilot external quality assessment scheme for analysis and reporting of circulating tumour DNA.

Authors:  Cleo Keppens; Elisabeth M C Dequeker; Simon J Patton; Nicola Normanno; Francesca Fenizia; Rachel Butler; Melanie Cheetham; Jennifer A Fairley; Hannah Williams; Jacqueline A Hall; Ed Schuuring; Zandra C Deans
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 4.  Biomarker testing in oncology - Requirements for organizing external quality assessment programs to improve the performance of laboratory testing: revision of an expert opinion paper on behalf of IQNPath ABSL.

Authors:  K Dufraing; F Fenizia; E Torlakovic; N Wolstenholme; Z C Deans; E Rouleau; M Vyberg; S Parry; E Schuuring; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 4.064

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.