4.6 Review

Dataset for reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting

期刊

HISTOPATHOLOGY
卷 62, 期 2, 页码 203-218

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/his.12042

关键词

checklist; dataset; prostate cancer; protocol; synoptic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kench J G, Delahunt B, Griffiths D F, Humphrey P A, McGowan T, Trpkov K, Varma M, Wheeler T M & Srigley J R (2013) Histopathology 62, 203-218 Dataset for reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens: recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting This project was designed to harmonise the Royal College of Pathologists, College of American Pathologists and Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia datasets, checklists and structured reporting protocols for examination of radical prostatectomy specimens, with the aim of producing a common, internationally agreed, evidence-based dataset for prostate cancer reporting. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting prostate cancer expert review panel analysed the three existing datasets, identifying concordant items and classified these data elements as required (mandatory) or recommended (non-mandatory), on the basis of the published literature up to August 2011. Required elements were defined as those that have agreed evidentiary support at NHMRC level III-2 or above. Consensus response values were formulated for each item. Twelve concordant pathology data elements were identified, and, on review, all but one were included as required elements for tumour staging, grading, or prediction of prognosis. There was minor discordance between the three existing datasets for another eight items, with two of these being added to the required data set. Another 11 elements with a lesser level of evidentiary support were included in the recommended dataset. This process was found to be an efficient method for producing an evidence-based dataset for prostate cancer. Such internationally agreed datasets should facilitate meaningful comparison of benchmarking data, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据