4.6 Article

Postsurgical Pathology Reporting of Thyroid Cancer in New South Wales, Australia

期刊

THYROID
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 604-610

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2011.0501

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Clear, accurate, and complete reporting of postsurgical pathology is crucial for the correct evaluation and management of thyroid cancer patients. This study aimed to describe the completeness, as defined by international guidelines, of pathology reporting in a cohort of newly diagnosed thyroid cancer patients in New South Wales (NSW) and to identify factors associated with the completeness of reports. Methods: Postsurgical pathology reports, held by the NSW Central Cancer Registry, for 448 thyroid cancer patients were reviewed. Presence or absence of recommended key features (tumor histology type, maximum dimension, focality, completeness of excision, extrathyroidal extension, lymphovascular invasion, and lymph node involvement) was recorded. Associations between the number of key items reported and several patient characteristics were investigated. Results: For 285 (63.6%) patients one or more key pathological features were missing, with 177 (39.5%) missing one only, 88 (19.6%) missing two, and 20 (4.5%) missing three or more. Extrathyroidal extension was the most poorly reported key feature, being present in only 228 (50.9%) reports [95% confidence interval 46.2, 55.6]. Pathology reports were less complete for patients with small tumor size (p<0.001) or localized spread (p<0.001). Synoptic reports were significantly more complete than narrative-style reports (98.3% vs. 27.1%, p<0.001). Conclusions: Postsurgical pathology reporting of differentiated thyroid cancer in NSW was found to be far from complete, with 64% of reports missing information on at least one feature that is considered internationally to be a critical factor in the prognosis and treatment of thyroid cancer patients. Synoptic reporting reduces the number of key features missing from pathology reports.

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