Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2016

08.04.2016 | Clinical trial

Structured reporting ensures complete content and quick detection of essential data in pathology reports of oncological breast resection specimens

verfasst von: Konrad Aumann, Kathrin Niermann, Jasmin Asberger, Ulrich Wellner, Peter Bronsert, Thalia Erbes, Dieter Hauschke, Elmar Stickeler, Gerald Gitsch, Gian Kayser, Martin Werner

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that not only the way of data acquisition but also the design of data visualization (i.e., the format) has impact on the quality of pathology reports. Therefore, we investigated the correlation between the format of pathology reports and the amount as well as the detection time of transmitted data. All reports of oncological breast resection specimens referred to the Institute for Surgical Pathology, University Medical Center Freiburg, between 2003 and 2011 (n = 4181) were classified into descriptive reports (DR, n = 856), structured reports (SR, n = 2455), or template-based synoptic reports (TBSR, n = 870). The reports were screened regarding the content of nine organ-specific essential data. The amount of recorded essential data per report was summarized in an essential data score (EDS) and the format types were statistically compared regarding their EDS. Additionally, we measured the time a gynecologist needed to detect all nine essential data within a subset of reports and compared the format types regarding the detection times statistically. A full-score EDS of 9 was seen in 28.4 % of all reports, in 4 % of DRs, in 21.4 % of SRs, and in 72.3 % of TBSRs (p < 0.0001). Median EDS of DRs was 7, of SRs 8, and of TBSRs 9 (p < 0.0001). Data regarding tumor localization, tumor size, specific grading, angioinvasion, hormone receptor status, and additional findings were mentioned more frequently in TBSRs compared to other format type reports with a statistically highly significant difference (p < 0.0001). Mean data detection time decreased significantly from 26 to 20 and 14 s in DRs, SRs, and TBSRs, respectively. Our results clearly show that due to the use of TBSRs reporting of oncological breast resection specimens are improved regarding the content of essential data and the clarity of the data layout resulting in a rapid detection of essential data by clinicians.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Austin R, Thompson B, Coory M et al (2009) Histopathology reporting of breast cancer in Queensland: the impact on the quality of reporting as a result of the introduction of recommendations. Pathology 41:361–365. doi:10.1080/00313020902884469 CrossRefPubMed Austin R, Thompson B, Coory M et al (2009) Histopathology reporting of breast cancer in Queensland: the impact on the quality of reporting as a result of the introduction of recommendations. Pathology 41:361–365. doi:10.​1080/​0031302090288446​9 CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ellis DW, Srigley J (2015) Does standardised structured reporting contribute to quality in diagnostic pathology? The importance of evidence-based datasets. Virchows Arch 468:1–9. doi:10.1007/s00428-015-1834-4 Ellis DW, Srigley J (2015) Does standardised structured reporting contribute to quality in diagnostic pathology? The importance of evidence-based datasets. Virchows Arch 468:1–9. doi:10.​1007/​s00428-015-1834-4
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Elston CW, Ellis IO (2002) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403–410. Author Commentary. Histopathology 41:151–151. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.14691.x CrossRefPubMed Elston CW, Ellis IO (2002) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991; 19; 403–410. Author Commentary. Histopathology 41:151–151. doi:10.​1046/​j.​1365-2559.​2002.​14691.​x CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2009) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Sobin LH, Wittekind C (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley, Geneva Sobin LH, Wittekind C (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley, Geneva
Metadaten
Titel
Structured reporting ensures complete content and quick detection of essential data in pathology reports of oncological breast resection specimens
verfasst von
Konrad Aumann
Kathrin Niermann
Jasmin Asberger
Ulrich Wellner
Peter Bronsert
Thalia Erbes
Dieter Hauschke
Elmar Stickeler
Gerald Gitsch
Gian Kayser
Martin Werner
Publikationsdatum
08.04.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3769-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.