Reporting and Abstracting Variability in Technical Standards for Breast Cancer Operations

Abstract

BackgroundThe American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has incorporated documentation of critical elements outlined in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery into revised standards for cancer center accreditation. This study assessed the current documentation of critical elements in partial mastectomy (PM) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) operative reports. Materials and methodsOperative reports for PM + SLNB at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2018 were reviewed for compliance and surveyor interobserver reliability with the Oncologic Elements of Operative Record defined in Operative Standards and compared with a nonredundant American Society of Breast Surgeons Mastery of Breast Surgery (MBS) quality measure for specimen orientation. ResultsTen reviewers each evaluated 66 PM + SLNB operative reports for 13 Oncologic Elements and one MBS measure. No operative records reported all critical elements for PM + SLNB or PM alone. Residents completed 36.4% of operative reports: Element documentation was similar for PM but varied significantly for SLNB between resident and attending authorship. Combined reporting performance and interrater reliability varied across all elements and was highest for the use of SLNB tracer (97.1% and κ = 0.95, respectively) and lowest for intraoperative assessment of SLNB (30.6%, κ = 0.43). MBS specimen orientation had both high proportion reported (87.0%) and interrater reliability (κ = 0.84). ConclusionsAdherence to reporting critical elements for PM and SLNB varied. Whether differential compliance was tied to discrepancies in documentation or reviewer abstraction, clarification of synoptic choices may improve reporting consistency. Evolving techniques or technologies will require continuous appraisal of mandated reporting for breast surgery.