or search on
|Title:||Pathology reporting of resected colorectal cancers in New South Wales in 2000|
|Authors:||Chapuis PH; Chan C; Lin BP; Armstrong K; Armstrong B; Spigelman AD; O'Connell DL; Leong D; Dent OF|
|Categories:||Cancer Type - Bowel & Colorectal Cancer|
Cancer Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes Research - Health Services, Economic and Health Policy Analyses
|Keywords:||Australia; Male; Medical Audit; methods; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; New South Wales; pathology; Registries; Research; surgery; cancer; Wales; cancer registry; colorectal cancer; Colorectal Neoplasms; epidemiology; Female; Guidelines; Humans|
|Journal Title:||ANZ Journal of Surgery|
|Page number start:||963|
|Page number end:||969|
|Abstract:||BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which pathology reporting of colorectal cancers notified to the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry during 2000 conformed to guidelines promulgated by the National Health and Medical Research Council. METHODS: De-identified reports for 2233 resected specimens of primary invasive colorectal carcinoma were coded according to a standardized system to compile information on 28 clinical and pathology features. An overall score for each report was calculated by computing the number out of 13 essential features specified in the guidelines for which data had been recorded explicitly and unambiguously in the report. RESULTS: The overall score ranged from 3 to 13 features with a mean of 9. No more than 7 features were reported explicitly in just less than one quarter of the reports and no more than 10 in three quarters. There were only 110 reports (4.9%) that included all features. Information on direct spread and nodal metastasis was well reported; resection margins less so. Many reports lacked information on metastases beyond the operative field, the involvement of deep or circumferential resection margins and tumour stage. CONCLUSION: In some respects pathology reports of resected colorectal cancer specimens displayed a high level of completeness. Some important features, however, were poorly described. Reporting could be improved if surgeons were to use a standardized form to convey clinical information to the pathologist and if pathologists were to report in a structured or synoptic format, explicitly recording the presence or absence of each feature in a standard list|
|Programme:||Health Services; Colorectal|
|Division:||Cancer Research Division|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Articles|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.