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 neoadjuvant trial

Leen Verleye, Petronella B. Ottevanger, Gunnar B. Kristensen, Tom Ehlen, Nick Johnson, Maria E.L. Van Der Burg, Nick S. Reed, René H.M. Verheijen, Katja N. Gaarenstroom, Berit Mosgaard, Jose M. Seoane, Jacobus Van Der Velden, Robert Lotocki, Winette Van Der Graaf, Björn Penninckx, Corneel Coens, Gavin Stuart, Ignace Vergote

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality of surgical pathology reports of advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. This quality assurance project was performed within the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 study comparing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. Methods: Four hundred and seventy nine pathology reports from 40 institutions in 11 different countries were checked for the following quality indicators: macroscopic description of all specimens, measuring and weighing of major specimens, description of tumour origin and differentiation. Results: All specimens were macroscopically described in 92.3% of the reports. All major samples were measured and weighed in 59.9% of the reports. A description of the origin of the tumour was missing in 20.5% of reports of the primary debulking group and in 23.4% of the interval debulking group. Assessment of tumour differentiation was missing in 10% of the reports after primary debulking and in 20.8% of the reports after interval debulking. Completeness of reports is positively correlated with accrual volume and adversely with hospital volume or type of hospital (academic versus non-academic). Quality of reports differs significantly by country. Conclusion: This audit of ovarian cancer pathology reports reveals that in a substantial number of reports basic pathologic data are missing, with possible adverse consequences for the quality of cancer care. Specialisation by pathologists and the use of standardised synoptic reports can lead to improved quality of reporting. Further research is needed to better define pre- and post-operative diagnostic criteria for ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-64
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume47
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint

Ovarian Neoplasms
Pathology
Neoplasms
Drug Therapy
Surgical Pathology
Fallopian Tubes
Quality of Health Care
Research

Keywords

  • Ovarian cancer
  • Quality of health care
  • Surgical pathology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

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 neoadjuvant trial. / Verleye, Leen; Ottevanger, Petronella B.; Kristensen, Gunnar B.; Ehlen, Tom; Johnson, Nick; Van Der Burg, Maria E.L.; Reed, Nick S.; Verheijen, René H.M.; Gaarenstroom, Katja N.; Mosgaard, Berit; Seoane, Jose M.; Van Der Velden, Jacobus; Lotocki, Robert; Van Der Graaf, Winette; Penninckx, Björn; Coens, Corneel; Stuart, Gavin; Vergote, Ignace.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 47, No. 1, 01.01.2011, p. 57-64.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Verleye, L, Ottevanger, PB, Kristensen, GB, Ehlen, T, Johnson, N, Van Der Burg, MEL, Reed, NS, Verheijen, RHM, Gaarenstroom, KN, Mosgaard, B, Seoane, JM, Van Der Velden, J, Lotocki, R, Van Der Graaf, W, Penninckx, B, Coens, C, Stuart, G & Vergote, I 2011, '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 neoadjuvant trial', European Journal of Cancer, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.008
Verleye, Leen ; Ottevanger, Petronella B. ; Kristensen, Gunnar B. ; Ehlen, Tom ; Johnson, Nick ; Van Der Burg, Maria E.L. ; Reed, Nick S. ; Verheijen, René H.M. ; Gaarenstroom, Katja N. ; Mosgaard, Berit ; Seoane, Jose M. ; Van Der Velden, Jacobus ; Lotocki, Robert ; Van Der Graaf, Winette ; Penninckx, Björn ; Coens, Corneel ; Stuart, Gavin ; Vergote, Ignace. / 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 neoadjuvant trial. In: European Journal of Cancer. 2011 ; Vol. 47, No. 1. pp. 57-64.
@article{fbb424fa7bcd41b7a5b00e46483326a3,
title = "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 neoadjuvant trial",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the quality of surgical pathology reports of advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. This quality assurance project was performed within the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 study comparing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. Methods: Four hundred and seventy nine pathology reports from 40 institutions in 11 different countries were checked for the following quality indicators: macroscopic description of all specimens, measuring and weighing of major specimens, description of tumour origin and differentiation. Results: All specimens were macroscopically described in 92.3{\%} of the reports. All major samples were measured and weighed in 59.9{\%} of the reports. A description of the origin of the tumour was missing in 20.5{\%} of reports of the primary debulking group and in 23.4{\%} of the interval debulking group. Assessment of tumour differentiation was missing in 10{\%} of the reports after primary debulking and in 20.8{\%} of the reports after interval debulking. Completeness of reports is positively correlated with accrual volume and adversely with hospital volume or type of hospital (academic versus non-academic). Quality of reports differs significantly by country. Conclusion: This audit of ovarian cancer pathology reports reveals that in a substantial number of reports basic pathologic data are missing, with possible adverse consequences for the quality of cancer care. Specialisation by pathologists and the use of standardised synoptic reports can lead to improved quality of reporting. Further research is needed to better define pre- and post-operative diagnostic criteria for ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.",
keywords = "Ovarian cancer, Quality of health care, Surgical pathology",
author = "Leen Verleye and Ottevanger, {Petronella B.} and Kristensen, {Gunnar B.} and Tom Ehlen and Nick Johnson and {Van Der Burg}, {Maria E.L.} and Reed, {Nick S.} and Verheijen, {Ren{\'e} H.M.} and Gaarenstroom, {Katja N.} and Berit Mosgaard and Seoane, {Jose M.} and {Van Der Velden}, Jacobus and Robert Lotocki and {Van Der Graaf}, Winette and Bj{\"o}rn Penninckx and Corneel Coens and Gavin Stuart and Ignace Vergote",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "57--64",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of pathology reports for advanced ovarian cancer

T2 - Are we missing essential information?: An audit of 479 pathology reports from the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 neoadjuvant trial

AU - Verleye, Leen

AU - Ottevanger, Petronella B.

AU - Kristensen, Gunnar B.

AU - Ehlen, Tom

AU - Johnson, Nick

AU - Van Der Burg, Maria E.L.

AU - Reed, Nick S.

AU - Verheijen, René H.M.

AU - Gaarenstroom, Katja N.

AU - Mosgaard, Berit

AU - Seoane, Jose M.

AU - Van Der Velden, Jacobus

AU - Lotocki, Robert

AU - Van Der Graaf, Winette

AU - Penninckx, Björn

AU - Coens, Corneel

AU - Stuart, Gavin

AU - Vergote, Ignace

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - Objective: To assess the quality of surgical pathology reports of advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. This quality assurance project was performed within the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 study comparing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. Methods: Four hundred and seventy nine pathology reports from 40 institutions in 11 different countries were checked for the following quality indicators: macroscopic description of all specimens, measuring and weighing of major specimens, description of tumour origin and differentiation. Results: All specimens were macroscopically described in 92.3% of the reports. All major samples were measured and weighed in 59.9% of the reports. A description of the origin of the tumour was missing in 20.5% of reports of the primary debulking group and in 23.4% of the interval debulking group. Assessment of tumour differentiation was missing in 10% of the reports after primary debulking and in 20.8% of the reports after interval debulking. Completeness of reports is positively correlated with accrual volume and adversely with hospital volume or type of hospital (academic versus non-academic). Quality of reports differs significantly by country. Conclusion: This audit of ovarian cancer pathology reports reveals that in a substantial number of reports basic pathologic data are missing, with possible adverse consequences for the quality of cancer care. Specialisation by pathologists and the use of standardised synoptic reports can lead to improved quality of reporting. Further research is needed to better define pre- and post-operative diagnostic criteria for ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

AB - Objective: To assess the quality of surgical pathology reports of advanced stage ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer. This quality assurance project was performed within the EORTC-GCG 55971/NCIC-CTG OV13 study comparing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval debulking surgery. Methods: Four hundred and seventy nine pathology reports from 40 institutions in 11 different countries were checked for the following quality indicators: macroscopic description of all specimens, measuring and weighing of major specimens, description of tumour origin and differentiation. Results: All specimens were macroscopically described in 92.3% of the reports. All major samples were measured and weighed in 59.9% of the reports. A description of the origin of the tumour was missing in 20.5% of reports of the primary debulking group and in 23.4% of the interval debulking group. Assessment of tumour differentiation was missing in 10% of the reports after primary debulking and in 20.8% of the reports after interval debulking. Completeness of reports is positively correlated with accrual volume and adversely with hospital volume or type of hospital (academic versus non-academic). Quality of reports differs significantly by country. Conclusion: This audit of ovarian cancer pathology reports reveals that in a substantial number of reports basic pathologic data are missing, with possible adverse consequences for the quality of cancer care. Specialisation by pathologists and the use of standardised synoptic reports can lead to improved quality of reporting. Further research is needed to better define pre- and post-operative diagnostic criteria for ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

KW - Ovarian cancer

KW - Quality of health care

KW - Surgical pathology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650417438&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650417438&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 20850296

AN - SCOPUS:78650417438

VL - 47

SP - 57

EP - 64

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

IS - 1

ER -