Concordance with XXXX pathology reporting practice guidelines.

@entity1 @entity0 @entity7593 @entity5 @entity3
BACKGROUND: Accurate pathology reporting is important for treatment of @entity0 . The @entity7593 ( @entity7593 ) distributed guidelines for reporting @entity5 specimens in 1998. The aim of this study was to determine community-wide concordance with @entity7593 @entity0 reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: Pathology reporting of stage I and II @entity0 was examined for adherence to @entity7593 guidelines. Pathology reports were reviewed from 100 consecutive cases of invasive @entity0 referred to Roswell Park Cancer Institute in 1998 to 1999 from community hospitals after excisional breast biopsy and 20 consecutive cases with excisional biopsy at RPCI. Adherence to @entity7593 guidelines for clinically relevant items was determined from the original pathology report in each case. RESULTS: One hundred one cases met the inclusion criteria. Most reports did not include at least one of the guideline required elements. Surgical margins were inked in only 77%, and the margins oriented in only 25% of @entity1 . Many specimens were not oriented by the surgeon. Grade was reported in most cases, but the Bloom Scarf Richardson grade was reported in only 6%. The presence or absence of @entity3 , and of coexisting in situ disease, was reported in 57% and 71%, respectively. The extent and type of in situ disease was reported in 47% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: @entity0 pathology reporting varies widely. Key elements that affect treatment are often omitted. These include gross description and size, orientation and involvement of surgical margins, and description of histologic features, including Bloom Scarf Richardson reporting of grade and the extent of an in situ component. Passive distribution of @entity7593 practice guidelines might be insufficient to accomplish community-wide quality improvement in breast pathology reporting.
