DEFICIENCIES IN PATHOLOGICAL REPORTING OF COLORECTAL CANCER IN VICTORIA

Background:  Colorectal cancer (CRC) pathological reporting deficiencies have been shown to be common, with deviations from the suggested minimum dataset. Information from both surgeon and pathologist is necessary for a complete report. These deficiencies have been shown to be correctable with the use of synoptic reporting. We carried out an audit on a random sample of CRC pathological reports from the first 6 months of 2004 in Victoria, Australia, with the aim of documenting current CRC pathological reporting deficiencies.

[1]  K. Lusky.  Pilot points way to speedier cancer surveillance. , 2005, CAP today.

[2]  T. Threlfall,et al.  Model for collecting colorectal cancer staging information in Western Australia , 2004, ANZ journal of surgery.

[3]  Eric A. Miller,et al.  Quality of colon carcinoma pathology reporting , 2004, Cancer.

[4]  O. Dent,et al.  Adverse histopathological findings as a guide to patient management after curative resection of node‐positive colonic cancer , 2004, The British journal of surgery.

[5]  N. Shepherd,et al.  Lymph node harvests directly influence the staging of colorectal cancer: evidence from a regional audit , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[6]  J. Sloan,et al.  Improvement in quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting with a standardized proforma – a comparative study , 2003, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[7]  J. Keating,et al.  Pathology reporting of rectal cancer: a national audit. , 2003, The New Zealand medical journal.

[8]  N. Shepherd,et al.  Identification of objective pathological prognostic determinants and models of prognosis in Dukes' B colon cancer , 2002, Gut.

[9]  Hatzidis,et al.  Does the caseload of the pathologist influence the minimum and extended data set of pathology variables reported for rectal adenocarcinoma? , 2000, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[10]  M. Balsitis,et al.  The use of a proforma improves colorectal cancer pathology reporting. , 1999, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[11]  S. Cross,et al.  The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. , 1998, Journal of clinical pathology.

[12]  G. Williams,et al.  Colorectal cancer pathology reporting: a regional audit. , 1997, Journal of clinical pathology.

[13]  J. Jass,et al.  Clinicopathological staging for colorectal cancer: An International Documentation System (IDS) and an International Comprehensive Anatomical Terminology (ICAT) , 1991, Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.