1 / 19

Assessing Quality of Pathology Reporting: The Case of Tongue Cancer

Assessing Quality of Pathology Reporting: The Case of Tongue Cancer. Lihua Liu 1 , PhD Wesley Y. Naritoku 2 , MD, PhD Juanjuan Zhang 1 , MS Lenard Berglund 1 , DMA Dennis Deapen 1 , DrPH Uttam K. Sinha 3 , MS, MD, FACS

ivanl
Télécharger la présentation

Assessing Quality of Pathology Reporting: The Case of Tongue Cancer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing Quality of Pathology Reporting: The Case of Tongue Cancer Lihua Liu1, PhD Wesley Y. Naritoku2, MD, PhD Juanjuan Zhang1, MS Lenard Berglund1, DMA Dennis Deapen1, DrPH Uttam K. Sinha3, MS, MD, FACS 1. Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program, Department of Preventive Medicine; 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory, LAC+USC Medical Center; 3. Dept. of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery; of Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

  2. Background • Pathological examinations and analyses provide crucial information for cancer treatment and patient care. • In 2000, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) developed and published its 1st protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information.

  3. Background • Little is known about the variations in pathology reporting • A study of breast cancer has found most pathology reports lacked some of the key clinically relevant information* • Complete reporting of pathologic information is a shared responsibility * Wilkinson et al. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 196:38-43.

  4. Study Objectives • Evaluate completeness of information in pathology reports of tongue cancer, according to the CAP 2000 protocol for upper aerodigestive tract • Assess the effectiveness of CAP guidelines among practicing pathologists.

  5. Study Design • Review of tongue cancer pathology reports of surgical specimen collected by the Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) • Assess the impact of CAP protocol by comparing review results of pathology reports of 2002-2003 with those of 1997

  6. Evaluation Methods • Each item on a pathology report is checked against the list of CAP identified key or recommended elements specific to the specimen type. • Presence of each CAP identified key or recommended element scores 1 point and absence of the information scores 0 point.

  7. Evaluation Methods • Adherence of a specific CAP key/recommended item is represented by the percentage of reports containing that item • Completeness of reporting is indicated by the total score of a report

  8. Evaluation Details – Clinical Info • Patient Identification • Responsible physician • Procedure date • Procedure • Relevant history • Relevant findings • Clinical diagnosis • Operative findings • Anatomic sites of specimen

  9. Evaluation Details – Macroscopic • Specimen description* • Specimen size in 3-dimension • Tumor size in 3-dimension* • Tumor site* • Margin description • Anatomic structure involved • Pattern of growth *CAP identified key items

  10. Evaluation Details – Microscopic • Histologic type* • Histologic grade* • Extent of invasion (pT)* • Mode of invasion • Depth of invasion • Lymph nodes involvement (pN) * • Status of margin* * CAP identified key items

  11. Materials 2002-3 1997 # tongue cases 441 190 # reports reviewed 457 229 # resection reports 159 87 # w/ lymph nodes 97 49

  12. Results – Clinical Info 2002-3 1997 • Pt. Identification 100% 100% • Resp. Physician 99% 82% • Procedure date 100% 100% • Procedure 93% 86% • Relevant history 28% 34% • Relevant findings 1% 0% • Clinical diagnosis 74% 71% • Operative findings 0% 0% • Sites of specimen 100% 99%

  13. Results – Macroscopic 2002-3 1997 • Spec. description* 92% 86% • Spec. size in 3-D 96% 93% • Tumor size in 3-D* 33% 34% • Tumor site* 99% 99% • Margin description 14% 18% • Anat. structure invol. 68% 70% • Pattern of growth 42% 43% *CAP identified key items

  14. Results – Microscopic 2002-3 1997 • Histologic type* 100% 100% • Histologic grade* 85% 91% • Extent of invasion (pT)* 34% 16% • Mode of invasion 23% 16% • Depth of invasion 14% 14% • LN involvement (pN)* 43% 29% • Status of margin* 96% 96% *CAP identified key items

  15. Depth of Invasion and Survival

  16. Results - Overall 2002-3 1997 Clinical (9) 6.0 5.7 Macroscopic (7) 4.4 4.4 Microscopic (7) 3.8 3.5 Key items (8) 5.7 (72%) 5.4 (68%) Total items (23) 14.2 (62%) 13.7 (59%)

  17. Conclusions • Publication of CAP guidelines resulted in slight improvement in overall completeness of reporting • Marked improvement was observed in the increased reporting of pT (extent of invasion, 34%) and pN (LN involvement, 43%) • Overall completeness of reporting is 62% (72% for key items)

  18. Limitations • The sample of pathology reports used in this study were collected by the CSP as a way of case-finding, may not include all types of reports (biopsy, resection, etc.) for each patient. • The distribution of missing surgical pathology reports is assumed to be random.

  19. Implications • To improve the quality of pathology reporting is an important task for better patient care • Pathologists need the support from surgeons to provide necessary info, also do a better job in reporting all possible • The CAP needs to adopt a more active role to enforce its protocols and monitor the quality of reporting among its members

More Related