Skip to main content

Synoptic Pathology Reports for Standardized Reporting of Commonly Biopsied or Surgically Resected Neoplasms

  • Chapter
Book cover Current Cancer Therapeutics
  • 133 Accesses

Abstract

The explosion of information and technology in medicine is changing the role of pathology and pathologists in patient care. Clinical pathology has kept pace with the rapidly changing medical environment, offering reliable, standardized, and timely results in simplified formats, using the available instrumentation and computer technology to maximum advantage, aided by an excellent Quality Assurance Program developed by the American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP).Anatomic pathology has become the focus of attention, as there is an urgent need to simplify and standardize all the pertinent information in a timely manner for the following reasons:

  1. 1

    Many morphologic parameters such as type, grade, and extent of tumor, involvement of margins and lymphatic/vascular invasion have been investigated by cooperative clinical trials involving large number of patients, confirming them to be of clinical significance in predicting outcome.

  2. 2

    A host of biologic tumor markers are available for fluid and tissue specimen testing. Attempts to characterize their predictive value should be correlated with morphologic parameters. In addition, markers of established clinical significance will need to become a part of routine histopathologic evaluation.

  3. 3

    Diagnostic techniques, such as cytogenetics, flow cytometry, and polymerase chain reaction are being used more frequently as aids to tissue diagnosis. This information must be incorporated in the surgical pathology report.

  4. 4

    Surgeons have a difficult time interpreting surgical pathology reports. In a recent study by Powsner et al. [1], the authors showed that surgeons misunderstood pathology reports 30% of the time. The authors attributed this to a communication gap and lack of familiarity with reporting formats. Standardized reports clearly could contribute to reducing the misunderstandings that clinicians have concerning pathology reports and, it is hoped, reduce medical errors.

  5. 5

    It is important to understand that all information, even that which at present is seemingly of limited significance, may be important in the future and should be recorded. This would facilitate meaningful clinical research in future, dealing with large patient populations.

  6. 6

    All data should be available in a format easily adaptable to various current computer information systems. This is a particularly important aspect, as we have supported the goal of having a national pathology cancer database that every potential researcher can tap into. In fact, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has now funded our institution along with Harvard, the University of California at Los Angeles, and Indianapolis to develop a “Shared Pathology Informatics Network” (SPIN) [2] with this goal at the core of the program. If successful, SPIN will allow researchers interested in anatomic pathology specimens to use a browser to anonymously search for case material from the participating institutions. This is now a reasonable (and laudable) goal with the widespread use and availability of the Internet.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Powsner SM; Costa J; Homer RJ: Clinicians are from mars and pathologists are from venus: clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:1040–1046.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Cancer Institute: Shared Pathology Informatics Network: Accessible at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CA-01-006.html. Accessed March 27, 2000.

  3. Hutter RVP, Rickert RR: Organization and management of the surgical pathology laboratory. In Principles and Practice of Surgical Pathology, vol 1. Edited by Silverberg SG. New York: Wiley; 1983:17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Markel SF, Hirsch SD: Synoptic surgical pathology reporting. Hum Pathol 1991, 22:807–810.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosai J and members of the Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Standardized reporting of surgical pathology diagnoses for the major tumor types. Am J Clin Pathol 1993, 100:240–255.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology: Standardization of the surgical pathology report. Am J Surg Pathol 1992,16:84–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zarbo RJ: Interinstitutional assessment of colorectal carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy: a College of American Pathologists Qj probes study of practice patterns from 532 laboratories and 15,940 reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992, 116:1113–1119.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zarbo RJ: The oncologic pathology report: quality by design. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:1004–1010.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Henson DE, Hutter RVP, Sobin LH, Bowman HE: Protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with colorectal carcinoma: a basis for checklists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994, 118:122–125.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fizgibbons PL, Connolly JL, Page DL: Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the breast: a basis for checklists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:1026–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Compton CC: Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the colon and rectum, excluding carcinoid tumors, lymphomas, sarcomas, and tumors of the vermiform appendix: a basis for checklists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:1016–1025.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, et al.: Prognostic factor in breast cancer: College of American Pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:966–978.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ, et al.: Prognostic factor in colorectal cancer: College of American Pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:979–994.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Snigley JR, Amin MB, Bostwick DG, et al.: Update protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the prostate gland: a basis for checklists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:1034–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond MEH, et al.: Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: College of American Pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:995–1000.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Compton CC: Updated protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with carcinomas of the colon and rectum, excluding carcinoid tumors, lymphomas, sarcomas, and tumors of the vermiform appendix: a basis for checklists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:1016–1025.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Henson DE, Hutter RVP, Sobin LH, Bowman HE: Protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with colorectal carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994, 118:122–125.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hutter RVP: Quality assurance in cancer care: pathology. Cancer 1989, 64:244–248.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nash DB: Practice guidelines and outcomes: where are we headed? Arch Pathol Lab Med 1990, 114:1122–1125.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruby SG, Henson DE: Practice protocols for surgical pathology: a communication from the cancer committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994, 118:120–121.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kempson RL: The time is now: checklists for surgical pathology reports, [editorial]. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992, 116:1107–1108.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kempson RL: Checklists for surgical pathology reports: an important step forward [editorial]. Am J Clin Pathol 1993, 100:196–197.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Leslie KO, Rosai J: Standardization of the Surgical Pathology Report: Formats, Templates and Synoptic Forms. Sem Diagnostic Pathol 1994, 11:253–257.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Robboy SJ, Bentley RC, Krigman H, et al.: Synoptic reports in gynecologic pathology. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1994, 13:161–174.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bale PM: A Comprehensive Microcomputer Network Program for Histopathology. Pathology 1991, 23:263–267.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hammond MEH, Fitzbbons PL, Compton CC, et al.: College of American Pathologists conference XXXV: solid tumor prognostic factors: which, how and so what? Summary document and recommendations for implementation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000 124: 958–965.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Taylor CR: The total test approach to standardization of immunohis-tochemistry. 2000, 124:945–951.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rosai J: Ackerman’s Surgical Pathology, edn 8. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc.; 1996:1319–2732.

    Google Scholar 

  29. American Joint Committee on Cancer: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, edn 5. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Becich, M.J. (2001). Synoptic Pathology Reports for Standardized Reporting of Commonly Biopsied or Surgically Resected Neoplasms. In: Current Cancer Therapeutics. Current Medicine Group, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1099-0_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1099-0_34

  • Publisher Name: Current Medicine Group, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-57340-176-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-1099-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics