Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Standard Protocol Implementation on the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Pathology Reporting

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of the study is to assess the influence of standardized protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer histopathology reporting.

Methods

A standardized protocol was created based on the recommendations of The College of American Pathologists. The impact of this protocol was measured by comparing frequencies of assessed parameters in histopathology reports before and after implementation.

Results

In total, 177 histopathology reports were included in this study. The numbers of harvested lymph nodes were 12.4 ± 5.2 (colon) and 12.6 ± 5.4 (rectum) before protocol; and 17.1 ± 6.5 (colon), and 16.6 ± 7.0 after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. The recommended minimum of 12 lymph nodes was not achieved in 42.8 % (colon) and 45.7 % (rectum) of specimens before, and in 10.4 % (colon) and 17.7 % (rectum) of specimens after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. There were no differences in histopathology assessment of proximal and distal resection margins, grading assessment, TNM staging recording, and number of positive findings of microscopic tumor aggressiveness. The findings of tumor budding, tumor satellites, and assessment of microscopic tumor aggressiveness were more frequent after protocol implementation. Histopathology reports of rectal specimens contained assessments of the macroscopic quality of mesorectum, circumferential resection margin, and neoadjuvant therapy effect (if administered) only after protocol introduction.

Conclusions

A standardized protocol is a valuable and effective tool for improving the quality of histopathology reporting. Its implementation is associated with more precise specimen evaluation, higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and improved completeness of histopathology reports.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rojo A, Sancho P, Alonso O et al (2010) Update on the surgical pathology standards on rectal cancer diagnosis, staging and quality assessment of surgery. Clin Trans Oncol 12:431–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jestin P, Pahlman L, Glimelius B et al (2005) Cancer staging and survival in colon cancer is dependent on the quality of the pathologists specimen examination. Eur J Cancer 41:2071–2078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shen SS, Haupt BX, Ro JY et al (2009) Number of lymph nodes examined and associated clinicopathologic factors in colorectal carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:781–786

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang GJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM et al (2007) Lymph node evaluation and survival after curetive resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(6):433–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Washington MK, Berlin J, Branton P et al (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with primary carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1539–1551

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goldstein NS (2002) Lymph node recoveries from 2427 pT3 colorectal resection specimens spanning 45 years. Recommendations for a minimum number of recovered lymph nodes based on predictive probabilities. Am J Surg Pathol 26:179–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bull AD, Biffin AH, Mella J et al (1997) Colorectal cancer pathology reporting: a regional audit. J Clin Pathol 50:138–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baxter NN, Virnig DJ, Rothenberger DA et al (2005) Lymph node evaluation in colorectal cancer patients: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:219–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dušek M, Chlumská A, Mukenšnabl P et al (2013) Examination of lymph nodes in resected colon segments with colorectal carcinoma. Rozhl Chir 92:250–254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lemmens VE, Verheij CD, Janssen-Heijnen ML et al (2006) Mixed adherence to clinical practice guidelines for colorectal cancer in the Southern Netherlands in 2002. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:168–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarli L, Bader G, Iusco D et al (2005) Number of lymph nodes examined and prognosis of TNM stage II colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 41:272–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim YW, Kim NK, Min BS et al (2009) The influence of the number of retrieved lymph nodes on staging and survival in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing tumor-specific mesorectal excision. Ann Surg 249:965–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ostadi MA, Harnish JL, Stegienko S et al (2007) Factors affecting the number of lymph nodes retrieved in ciolorectal cancer specimens. Surg Endosc 21:2142–2146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson PM, Malatjalian D, Porter GA (2002) Adequacy of nodal harvest in colorectal cancer: a consecutive cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg 6(6):883–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Namm J, Ng M, Roy-Chowdhury S et al (2008) Quantitating the impact of stage migration on staging accuracy in colorectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 207(6):882–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK (1985) The Will Rogers phenomenon: stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 312:1604–1608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller EA, Woosley J, Martin CF et al (2004) Hospital-to-hospital variation in lymph node detection after colorectal resection. Cancer 101(5):1065–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Buchwald P, Olofsson F, Lörinc E et al (2011) Standard protocol for assessment of colon cancer improves the quality of pathology. Colorectal Dis 13(3):e33–e36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Beattie GC, McAdam TK, Elliott S et al (2003) Improvement in quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting with a standardized proforma—a comparative study. Colorectal Dis 5:558–562

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. How P, Shihab O, Tekkis P et al (2011) A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era. Surg Oncol 20:149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(2):303–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wibe A, Rendedal PR, Svensson E et al (2002) Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 89:327–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ihnát P, Martínek L, Ihnát Rudinská L et al (2013) Circumferential resection margin in the modern treatment of rectal carcinoma. Rozhl Chir 92:297–303

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank medical statistician Ing. Hana Tomášková, Ph.D, for helping with the statistical analysis.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, Zábřeh, 703 00, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Peter Ihnát, Petr Vávra & Pavel Zonča

  2. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Peter Ihnát, Petr Vávra & Pavel Zonča

  3. Department of Pathology, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Patricie Delongová, Jaroslav Horáček & Lucia Ihnát Rudinská

  4. Department of Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Patricie Delongová, Jaroslav Horáček & Lucia Ihnát Rudinská

Authors
  1. Peter Ihnát
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricie Delongová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaroslav Horáček
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lucia Ihnát Rudinská
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Petr Vávra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pavel Zonča
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Ihnát.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ihnát, P., Delongová, P., Horáček, J. et al. The Impact of Standard Protocol Implementation on the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Pathology Reporting. World J Surg 39, 259–265 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2796-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2796-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation