Comparison of Breast Cancer Reporting in Institutional based Laboratories with Standalone Laboratories in a City in Western India
Abstract:
Background: Surgeons need complete, accurate surgical pathology reports with diagnostic reasoning to reach an optimum therapeutic plan for best possible prognosis. International guidelines have led to checklists for pathological reporting and surgeons will be well to be aware of how to ensure good tissue sample collection, storage, transport and communication with the pathologist on diagnosis concordance or discrepancy and further planning.
Material and Methods: The different international guidelines for pathology reporting of cancer were studied and the checklist by CAP was taken as a benchmark to assess the reporting of different laboratories and the concordance and level of reporting adherence with the type of reporting laboratory. Reports from different level laboratories in a tier 2 city were taken for analysis and compared against the checklist. The results were collated and summarized with statistical workup.
Results: The reports from standalone laboratories and hospital or institution-based laboratories were compared with 31-point checklist by CAP, showed overall 41.94 % (1300/3100) compliance. Ten reports from each of the two types of reporting settings showed group compliance 24.19 % (375/1550) for standalone laboratories compared to 59.68 % (925/1550) institutional based laborites.
Conclusion: This study shows that the quality of surgical pathology reports for breast cancer is not satisfactory. Therefore, there is great need to create awareness among histopathologists regarding the importance of accurate breast cancer surgical pathology reporting and to introduce a standardized checklist according to international guidelines for better treatment planning.
