Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Standardization of Diagnostic Terminology and Criteria: A Prelude for Error Reduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology

  • 928 Accesses

Abstract

The practice and advancement of medicine depends on the use of a common language in the diagnosis and staging of disease. Standardized diagnostic terminology and criteria serve as a foundation in error reduction. Three factors are necessary for a successful standardized scheme of disease classification: (1) ease of use, (2) reproducibility, and (3) clinical relevance. From the pathologists’ perspective, this includes agreement on the terms referring to disease and also agreement on the features necessary to define a disease or lesion. The most notable benefit of standardization is to reduce diagnostic disagreements and build confidence in a system of classification of disease that is reliable and reproducible so that over time, clinicians are able to manage their patients with confidence.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
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

References

  1. Weiss SW, Goldblum JR. Soft tissue tumors of intermediate malignancy of uncertain type. In: Weiss SW, Goldblum JR, editors. Enzinger & Weiss’s soft tissue tumors. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 1093–160.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Batts KP. Barrett Esophagus—more steps forward. Hum Pathol. 2001;21:357–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, Thiele J, Vardiman JW, editors. WHO Classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissue. Lyon: IARC; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cancer Protocols, http://www.cap.org/apps/cap.portal?_nfpb=true&cntvwrPtlt_actionOverride=%2Fportlets%2FcontentViewer%2Fshow&_windowLabel=cntvwrPtlt&cntvwrPtlt%7BactionForm.contentReference%7D=committees%2Fcancer%2Fcancer_protocols%2Fprotocols_index.html&_state=maximized&_pageLabel=cntvwr, College of American Pathologist. Accessed 12 April 2013.

  5. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Solez K, et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions. Am J Transplant. 2008;8:753–60. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02159.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Demetris AJ, et al. Banff Schema for grading liver allograft rejection: an international consensus document. Hepatology. 1997;25:658–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Drachenberg CB, et al. Banff Schema for grading pancreas allograft rejection: working proposal by a multi-disciplinary international consensus panel. Am J Transplant. 2008;8:1237–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stewart S, et al. Revision of the 1990 working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24:1710–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart S, et al. Revision of the working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of lung rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26:1229–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Amin MB. Key issues in reporting common cancer specimen findings using the College of American Pathologists Cancer Protocols. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(3):284–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Connolly JL. Changes and problematic areas in interpretation of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edition, for breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(3):287–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marchevsky AM. Problems in pathologic staging of lung cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(3):292–302.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Srigley JR. Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(3):303–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Compton CC. Key issues in reporting common cancer specimens: problems in pathologic staging of colon cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(3):318–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Verleye L. Quality of pathology reports for advanced ovarian cancer: are we missing essential information? An audit of 479 pathology reports from the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 neoadjuvent trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:57–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Messenger DE, Mcleod RS, Kirsh R. What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:1471–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Meier FA, Varney RC, Zarbo RJ. Study of amended reports to evaluate and improve surgical pathology processes. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011;18(5):406–13. doi:10.1097/PAP.0b013e318229bf20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15:209–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992;16(12):1133–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pomianowska E, Grzyb K, Westgaard A, Clausen OPF, Gladhaug IP. Reclassification of tumour origin in resected periampullary adenocarcinomas reveals underestimation of distal bile duct cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:1043–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Reid BJ, et al. Observer variation in the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett’s Esophagus. Hum Pathol. 1988;19:166–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sampliner RE. Practice guideline on the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:1028–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Montgomery E, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett Esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:368–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Montgomery E, et al. Dysplasia as a predictive marker for invasive carcinoma in Barrett Esophagus: a follow-up study based on 138 cases from a diagnostic variability study. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:379–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. Am J Surg Pathol;1992;16(9):914–6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:658–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Olson MT, Boonyaarunnate T, Atlinboga AA, Ali SZ. ‘suspicious for papillary thyroid carcinoma’ before and after the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology: impact of standardized terminology. Acta Cytol. 2013;57:455–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zaino RJ, Kauderer J, Trimble CL, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer. 2006;106(4):804–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kendall BS, Ronnett BM, Isacson C, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and well-differentiated carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22:1012–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chafe S, et al. An analysis of the impact of pathology review in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48(5):1433–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chan JK. Strict criteria should be applied in the diagnosis of encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:16–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Why there is the tendency to “overdiagnose” the follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:19–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosai J Thyroid gland. In: Rosai and Ackerman’s Surgical Pathology. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2004.p. 515–94.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hirokawa M, Carney JA, Goellner JR, et al. Observer variation of encapsulated follicular lesions of the thyroid gland. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1508–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Mayo Clinic Florida, 4500 San Pablo Rd., Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Raouf E. Nakhleh MD

Authors
  1. Raouf E. Nakhleh MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raouf E. Nakhleh MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pathology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

    Raouf E. Nakhleh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nakhleh, R. (2015). Standardization of Diagnostic Terminology and Criteria: A Prelude for Error Reduction. In: Nakhleh, R. (eds) Error Reduction and Prevention in Surgical Pathology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2339-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2339-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2338-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2339-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation