The Complete Surgical Pathology Report

Chapter

Abstract

An essential component of the postanalytic phase of a pathology test is a timely, concise, complete, and easy to read and understand report. The information provided in the pathology report is useful for optimal patient management as it provides not only accurate diagnosis but also information that may be prognostic or predictive. The purpose of a specimen procurement may be defeated if the pathology report is inaccurate, verbose, incomplete, difficult to read, or difficult to understand. An incomplete or ambiguous pathology report for cancer resection may not only delay patient management (as clarification of the report may be sought by the treating clinicians), but may be misunderstood with potentially significant consequences. Hence, the importance of a complete report cannot be overemphasized. The need for standardized reporting was identified more than two decades ago. The Association of Directors of Surgical Pathology (ADASP) highlighted the importance of standardization of surgical pathology reports, including the use of a “checklist” approach for recording information needed for patient treatment and prognosis. While most of the recommendations by ADASP have been adopted by most in the pathology community, there have been recent studies highlighting the need for improvement in the standardization and completeness of pathology reports. In fact, a recent College of American Pathology (CAP) Q-Probes study found that almost 30 % of pathology reports lacked at least one or more required elements.

Keywords

Complete surgical pathology report Association of Directors of Surgical Pathology (ADASP) Standardization College of American Pathology (CAP) Checklist Synoptic report 

References

  1. 1.
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Standardization of the surgical pathology report. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(1):84–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kempson RL. Checklists for surgical pathology reports: an important step forward [editorial]. Am J ClinPathol. 1993;100(3):196–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of breast carcinoma. Am J ClinPathol. 1995;104(6):614–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of urinary bladder specimens containing bladder neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 1996;27(8):751–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of resected large intestinal carcinomas. Hum Pathol.1996;27(1):5–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Recommendations for the reporting of larynx specimens containing laryngeal neoplasm. Virchows Arch. 1997;431(3):155–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zarbo RJ. Interinstitutional assessment of colorectal carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of practice patterns from 532 laboratories and 15,940 reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116(11):1113–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Idowu MO, Bekeris LG, Raab S, Ruby SG, Nakhleh RE. Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 86 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(7):969–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    College of American Pathologists Accreditation Program. Anatomic Pathology Checklist (7/29/2013). Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologist.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    American Board of Pathology Maintenance of Certification booklet information. http://www.abpath.org/MOCBofI.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2013.
  13. 13.
    American Board of Pathology Maintenance of Certification Matters. https://mocmatters.abms.org/board.aspx#abpath. Accessed 9 Sept 2013.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Nakhleh RE. What is quality in surgical pathology? J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(7):669–72.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cancer Program Standards 2012. Ensuring patient-centered care. http://facs.org/cancer/coc/programstandards2012.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2013.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, Raby M, Ross J, Kramer S, Sawka C. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99(8):517–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R. What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(11):1471–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Onerheim R, Racette P, Jacques A, Gagnon R. Improving the quality of surgical pathology reports for breast cancer: a centralized audit with feedback. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(9):1428–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Imperato PJ, Waisman J, Wallen M, Llewellyn CC, Pryor V. Breast cancer pathology practices among Medicare patients undergoing unilateral extended simple mastectomy. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002;11(6):537–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Chang A, Gibson IW, Cohen AH, Weening JJ, Jennette JC, Fogo AB. Renal pathology society. A position paper on standardizing the non-neoplastic kidney biopsy report. Human Pathol. 2012;43(8):1192–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Valenstein PN. Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(1):84–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Template for reporting results of biomarker testing for colon and rectum carcinoma. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/committees/cancer/cancer_protocols/2013/ColorectalBiomarker_13Template_1100.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2013.
  27. 27.
    Template for reporting results of biomarker testing for non-small cell lung carcinoma. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/committees/cancer/cancer_protocols/2013/LungBiomarker_13Template_1100.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyVirginia Commonwealth University Health SystemRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations