Compliance with reporting guidelines by Australian pathologists: an audit of the quality of histopathology reporting in high-grade glioma.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic pathology reports inform management plans for patients with glioma, and there is an increasing clinical need for molecular testing. We assessed the quality of histopathology reports of grade III/IV gliomas.
METHODS: Reports were obtained as part of a tumor biobank. From 720 pathology reports, 594 eligible reports were assessed for 28 elements derived from published checklists. A summary quality score incorporated 9 critical parameters for clinical decision making: diagnosis using World Health Organization 2007 criteria; cell type; grade; narrative supporting cell type and grade; absence of equivocal language; conclusion reporting cell type and grade; and conclusion aligned with report narrative.
RESULTS: Of 594 eligible reports, the final conclusion was not supported by the report narrative in 122 (21%). Tumor classification and grade were not supported by the narrative in 105 (18%) and 36 (6%) reports, respectively. Only 145 (24%) reports fulfilled all 9 quality criteria, while 25% contained 6 or fewer key quality indices. Report quality was higher when pathologists had neuropathology subspecialization, when a grade IV tumor was reported, and when the specimen was from an initial resection or grade-progressed tumor rather than recurrent high-grade glioma. Use of molecular testing increased over time, from 29% to 48% over four quartiles of the study. Molecular testing was more frequently done where oligodendroglial elements were reported.
CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of reports failed to meet key indicators of report quality. Pathology reporting is critical in communicating between pathologists and treating clinicians. Clinicians should be aware of reporting quality and seek clarification when required.