rss
J Clin Pathol 2004;57:702-705 doi:10.1136/jcp.2003.013326
  • Original article

Upper gastrointestinal cancer pathology reporting: a regional audit to compare standards with minimum datasets

  1. P M King1,
  2. J M Blazeby2,
  3. J Gupta3,
  4. D Alderson4,
  5. M Moorghen5
  1. 1Department of Surgery, East Somerset NHS Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, Somerset BA21 4AT, UK
  2. 2University Department of Social Medicine and Division of Surgery, United Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK
  3. 3Department of Histopathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
  4. 4Division of Surgery, United Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK
  5. 5Department of Histopathology, United Bristol NHS Trust
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr M Moorghen
 Department of Histopathology, United Bristol NHS Trust, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK; m.moorghenbristol.ac.uk
  • Accepted 8 December 2003

Abstract

Aims: Accurate pathological (pTNM) staging of oesophageal and gastric cancer provides important prognostic information. The aim of this study was to compare the standard of pathology reporting of oesophageal and gastric cancer resections from a cancer network with standards set by the Royal College of Pathologists.

Methods: All reports for oesophageal and gastric cancer resections from the five hospitals in the cancer network in 2001 were collected. Individual items of information were compared with minimum datasets provided by the Royal College of Pathologists. Items were classified as “complete”, “partially complete”, or “absent”.

Results: One hundred and ten reports were audited (54 oesophageal and 56 gastric). Fourteen gastric and 17 oesophagectomy reports were over 75% complete. Clinically important missing data occurred most frequently for the pM component of TNM staging (pMx omitted in 87 reports) and completeness of resection expressed as a bold statement (absent in 50 reports). Twelve reports could not be classified because the specimen contained no residual tumour after neoadjuvant treatment.

Conclusion: The use of a standard proforma for reporting upper gastrointestinal cancers based on a minimum dataset provided by the Royal College of Pathologists is recommended, with modifications to allow for specimens with no tumour after neoadjuvant treatment.

Footnotes

    Latest from JCP Education

    Latest from JCP Education

    Register for free content


    Free sample
    This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JCP.
    View free sample issue >>

    Free archive
    The full back archive is now available for JCP. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
    Register to access the free archive >>

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

  • Latest Pathology jobs

    Latest Pathology jobs