Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma.

It has been evident for decades that pathology reports are very variable even within a single institution. Standardization of reporting is the optimal way to insure that information necessary for patient management, prognostic and predictive factor assessment, grading, staging, analysis of outcomes, and tumor registries are included in pathology reports. The ADASP has chosen a pathologist expert in each field to assemble a group from within the pathology community (with clinician input if desired) to write specific cancer protocols. These were then approved by the ADASP council and subsequently by the membership. The American College of Surgery Commission on Cancer (COC) accredits cancer centers in the United States. Recently, the COC decided to require elements, deemed as essential by the CAP, to be described in all pathology reports in their accredited cancer centers as of January 2004. Importantly, they do not require that the specific College of Pathologists (CAP) protocols or synoptic reports be used. ADASP has updated all of its protocols to comply with the COC requirements in the form of uniform checklists. The checklists use the staging criteria cited in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 2002 staging manual (sixth edition) but include a variety of other references listed in each of the checklists. Moreover, the checklists are formatted for ease of use. They may be used as templates for uniform reporting and are designed to be compatible with voice-activated transcription. The different elements in these revised ADASP diagnostic checklists have been divided into Required and Optional. The term Required in this context only signifies compliance with the COC guidelines. ADASP realizes that specimens and practices vary, and it will not be possible to report these elements in every case. However, ADASP hopes that pathologists will find these checklists useful in daily clinical practice while facilitating compliance with the new COC requirements.

[1]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[2]  I. Sesterhenn,et al.  World health organization classifications of tumours. pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs , 2005 .

[3]  Sten Nilsson,et al.  Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[4]  Liang Cheng,et al.  Does pT2b prostate carcinoma exist? Critical appraisal of the 2002 TNM classification of prostate carcinoma , 2004, Cancer.

[5]  J. Epstein,et al.  Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[6]  M. Kattan,et al.  Radical prostatectomy for carcinoma of the prostate , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[7]  J. Epstein.  The evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens. Therapeutic and prognostic implications. , 1991, Pathology annual.

[8]  D. Grignon,et al.  Pathologic staging of prostate carcinoma: What are the issues? , 1996, Cancer.

[9]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Adenocarcinoma of the prostate. I. Tissue sampling considerations. , 1993, American journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens , 2005, Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. Supplementum.

[11]  A. Partin,et al.  Biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy in men with pathologic organ‐confined disease: pT2a versus pT2b , 2004, Cancer.

[12]  J. Breul,et al.  The ability of the American Joint Committee On Cancer Staging system to predict progression‐free survival after radical prostatectomy , 2001, BJU International.