Abstract

Pathology reporting is evolving from a traditional narrative report to a more structured synoptic report. Narrative reporting can cause misinterpretation due to lack of information and structure. In this systematic review, we evaluate the impact of synoptic reporting on completeness of pathology reports and quality of pathology evaluation for solid tumours. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies describing the effect of synoptic reporting implementation on completeness of reporting and quality of pathology evaluation of solid malignant tumours. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies, except one, reported an increased overall completeness of pathology reports after introduction of synoptic reporting (SR). Most frequently studied cancers were breast (n = 9) and colorectal cancer (n = 16). For breast cancer, narrative reports adequately described ‘tumour type’ and ‘nodal status’. Synoptic reporting resulted in improved description of ‘resection margins’, ‘DCIS size’, ‘location’ and ‘presence of calcifications’. For colorectal cancer, narrative reports adequately reported ‘tumour type’, ‘invasion depth’, ‘lymph node counts’ and ‘nodal status’. Synoptic reporting resulted in increased reporting of ‘circumferential margin’, ‘resection margin’, ‘perineural invasion’ and ‘lymphovascular invasion’. In addition, increased numbers of reported lymph nodes were found in synoptic reports. Narrative reports of other cancer types described the traditional parameters adequately, whereas for ‘resection margins’ and ‘(lympho)vascular/perineural invasion’, implementation of synoptic reporting was necessary. Synoptic reporting results in improved reporting of clinical relevant data. Demonstration of clinical impact of this improved method of pathology reporting is required for successful introduction and implementation in daily pathology practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00428-016-1935-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • The ever increasing complexity of cancer treatment requires a high-quality diagnostic process, in which anatomic pathology plays a central role

  • We showed that synoptic reporting (SR) results in more complete pathology reports

  • Whilst traditional parameters such as ‘tumour type’, ‘grade’, ‘invasion depth’ and ‘nodal status’ are in general well reported with narrative pathology reports (NRs), other clinical relevant features such as resection margins and ‘type of local spread’ are frequently lacking

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The ever increasing complexity of cancer treatment requires a high-quality diagnostic process, in which anatomic pathology plays a central role. Virchows Arch (2016) 468:639–649 with free text and without any further guidelines These traditional narrative pathology reports (NRs) are considered level 1 reporting. Level three consists of a synoptic-like structured format With this method, the pathologist follows a checklist per cancer type to ensure that all mandatory parameters are reported. The pathologist follows a checklist per cancer type to ensure that all mandatory parameters are reported The layout of this type of reporting can still be narrative. The result is a well-structured overview of the mandatory parameters for the pathology report (level 6). We hypothesised that the implementation of SR improved both the completeness of anatomic pathology reports (per parameter and overall) as well as the inherent quality of anatomic pathologic evaluation of cancer specimens

Literature search
Results
Discussion
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call