Reyes E, Vargas-González R

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 127-132
PDF size: 57.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Analyze the quality of free-text pathology report in gastric carcinoma. Design. A quality control study. Setting. A third level hospital dedicated to gastrointestinal diseases. Material and Methods: All free-text surgical pathology reports of gastrectomy with carcinoma during 1987-2000. We applied the ADASP standardized format. The quality was evaluated with eight anatomo-pathological parameters considered as the minimum data for tumor stage that were: anatomical site, macroscopic type, tumor dimensions, local invasion, histological type, surgical margins, lymph nodes number and mucosal alterations near to the carcinoma. Each variable was assigned with a value of 1 point and accordingly to the number of diagnosed variables, the quality was: i) optimal (8 points), ii) satisfactory (7 points), iii) acceptable (6 points) and iv) innadequate (5 points). The ideal lymph node number was 15 according to the 1997 IUCC proposal. Results: The quality of 185 free-text pathology reports were: satisfactory 45% (n = 84), acceptable 41% (n = 77), inadequate 7% (n = 13) and optimal 5% (n = 11). The most frequent omitted data were local tumor extension (99%), anatomical site (95%), size (52%), depth (40%) and histological type (30%). Negative or positive finding of preneoplastic mucosal changes were absent in 84% and non-neoplastic mucosal changes in 57%. A deficient number of lymph node occurred in 48%. Conclusions: The standardized pathology format detected data deficiencies in 50% of all free-text reports. The quality of our free-text pathology report for gastric carcinoma was satisfactory and acceptable, but optimal only in 5%. Standardized procedures improve the quality of cancer gastric pathology reporting.

REFERENCES

1. Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Amended report in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error detection and avoidance. A College of American Pathologist Q-probes Study of 1667547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998; 122: 303-9.

2. Attanoos ERl, Bull AD, Douglas-Jones AG, Fligelstone LJ, et al. Phraseology in pathology reports. A comparative study of interpretation among pathologist and surgeons. J Clin Pathol 1996; 49: 78-91.

3. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Standardization of the surgical pathology report. Am J Surg Pathol 1992; 16: 84-6.

4. Leslie OK, Rosai J. Standardization of the surgical pathology report: Formats, templates and synoptic reports. Semin Diag Pathol 1994; 11: 253-7.

5. Compton CC. Surgical pathology for the oncology patient in the age of standardization: of margins, micrometastasis, and molecular markers. Semin Radiat Oncol 2003; 13: 382-8.

6. Sobin LH, Wittekind Ch (eds.). TNM classification of malignant tumors. International Union Against Cancer (UICC). 5a. Ed. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1997.

7. Cowan DF. Quality assurance in anatomic pathology. An information system approach. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1990; 114: 129-34.

8. Zarbo RJ. Monotoring anatomic pathology practice through quality assurance measures. Clin Lab Med 1999; 19: 713-42.

9. Zarbo RJ. Improving quality in pathology and laboratory medicine. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 563-4.

10. Zarbo RJ. The oncology pathology report. Quality by design. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124: 1004-10.

11. Ioachim LH. On variability, standardization, and error in diagnostic pathology. Am J Sug Pathol 2001; 25: 1101-3.

12. King PM, Blazeby J, Gupta J, Alderson D, et al. Upper gastrointestinal cancer pathology reporting: a regional audit to compare standards with minumum datasets. J Clin Pathol 2004; 57: 702-5.

13. Kempson LR. The time is now. Checklist for surgical pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992; 116: 1107-8.

14. Michelassi F, Takaoishi D, Pantalone D, Hart J, Chappell R, Block E. Analysis of clinicopathologic prognostic features in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. Surgery 1994; 116: 804-9.

15. Noguchi Y. Blood vessel invasion in gastric carcinoma. Surgery 1990; 107: 140-8.

16. Rudiger S, Bottcher K, Stein J, Jurgen D. Relevant prognostic factors in gastric cancer ten-year results of the german gastric cancer study. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 449-61.

17. Baba H, Korenaga D, Okamura T, Saito A, Sugimachi K. Prognostic factors in gastric cancer with serosal invasion. Arch Surg 1989; 124: 1061-4.

18. Kitagawa Y, Kitajima M. Lymphatic mapping for upper gastrointestinal malignancies. Semin Oncol 2004; 31: 409-14.

19. Siewert JR, Boettcher K, Roder JD, Bus R. German gastric carcinoma study group. Prognostic relevance of systematic lymph node dissection in gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg 1993: 80: 1015-18.

20. Meyer HJ, Jahne J. Lymph Node Dissection for Gastric Cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 1999; 17: 117-24.

21. Bonenkamp J, Hermans J, Sasako M, Van de Velde H. Extended lymph-node dissection for gastric cancer. N Eng J M 1999; 340: 908-14.

22. Lee HK, Yang HK, Kim WH, Lee KU, et al. Influence of the number of lymph nodes examined on staging of gastric cancer. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1408-12.

23. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Weil CK. The Will Roger phenomenom. Stage migration and new diagnostic thecniques as a source of misleading statistic for survival in cancer. N Eng J Med 1985; 312: 1604-8.

24. Karpeh MS, Leon L, Klimstra D, Brennan MF. Lymph node staging in gastric cancer: is location more important than number? An analysis of 1038 patients. Ann Surg 2000; 232: 362-71.

25. Hundall SA, Phillips JL, Menck HR. The National Cancer Data Base Report on poor survival of US gastric carcinoma patients treated with gastrectomy. Fifth Edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging proximal disease and the ‘different disease hypothesis. Cancer 2000; 88: 921-32.

26. Rubio CA, Jessurum J, Alonso de Ruiz P. Geographic variations in the histopathologic characteristics of the gastric mucosa. Am J Clin Pathol 1991; 96: 330-3.

27. Tokunaga Y, Shirahase H, Hoppou T. Density of Helicobacter pylori infection evaluated semiquantitatively in gastric cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2000; 31: 217-21.