A survey of reporting of colorectal cancer in Scotland: compliance with guidelines and effect of proforma reporting

Opportunities for personalised follow-up in breast cancer: the gap between daily practice and recurrence risk

PURPOSE

Follow-up guidelines barely diverge from a one-size-fits-all approach, even though the risk of recurrence differs per patient. However, the personalization of breast cancer care improves outcomes for patients. This study explores the variation in follow-up pathways in the Netherlands using real-world data to determine guideline adherence and the gap between daily practice and risk-based surveillance, to demonstrate the benefits of personalized risk-based surveillance compared with usual care.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-III invasive breast cancer who received surgical treatment in a general hospital between 2005 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and included all imaging activities during follow-up from hospital-based electronic health records. Process analysis techniques were used to map patients and activities to investigate the real-world utilisation of resources and identify the opportunities for improvement. The INFLUENCE 2.0 nomogram was used for risk prediction of recurrence.

RESULTS

In the period between 2005 and 2020, 3478 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. In the first 12 months following treatment, patients visited the hospital between 1 and 5 times (mean 1.3, IQR 1-1) and received between 1 and 9 imaging activities (mean 1.7, IQR 1-2). Mammogram was the prevailing imaging modality, accounting for 70% of imaging activities. Patients with a low predicted risk of recurrence visited the hospital more often.

CONCLUSIONS

Deviations from the guideline were not in line with the risk of recurrence and revealed a large gap, indicating that it is hard for clinicians to accurately estimate this risk and therefore objective risk predictions could bridge this gap.

Automated Generation of Synoptic Reports from Narrative Pathology Reports in University Malaya Medical Centre Using Natural Language Processing

Pathology reports represent a primary source of information for cancer registries. University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) is a tertiary hospital responsible for training pathologists; thus narrative reporting becomes important. However, the unstructured free-text reports made the information extraction process tedious for clinical audits and data analysis-related research. This study aims to develop an automated natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to summarize the existing narrative breast pathology report from UMMC to a narrower structured synoptic pathology report with a checklist-style report template to ease the creation of pathology reports. The development of the rule-based NLP algorithm was based on the R programming language by using 593 pathology specimens from 174 patients provided by the Department of Pathology, UMMC. The pathologist provides specific keywords for data elements to define the semantic rules of the NLP. The system was evaluated by calculating the precision, recall, and F1-score. The proposed NLP algorithm achieved a micro-F1 score of 99.50% and a macro-F1 score of 98.97% on 178 specimens with 25 data elements. This achievement correlated to clinicians’ needs, which could improve communication between pathologists and clinicians. The study presented here is significant, as structured data is easily minable and could generate important insights.

Impact on Quality of Documentation and Workload of the Introduction of a National Information Standard for Tumor Board Reporting

PURPOSE

Tumor boards, clinical practice guidelines, and cancer registries are intertwined cancer care quality instruments. Standardized structured reporting has been proposed as a solution to improve clinical documentation, while facilitating data reuse for secondary purposes. This study describes the implementation and evaluation of a national standard for tumor board reporting for breast cancer on the basis of the clinical practice guideline and the potential for reusing clinical data for the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR).

METHODS

Previously, a national information standard for breast cancer was derived from the corresponding Dutch clinical practice guideline. Using data items from the information standard, we developed three different tumor board forms: preoperative, postoperative, and postneoadjuvant-postoperative. The forms were implemented in Amphia Hospital’s electronic health record. Quality of clinical documentation and workload before and after implementation were compared.

RESULTS

Both draft and final tumor board reports were collected from 27 and 31 patients in baseline and effect measurements, respectively. Completeness of final reports increased from 39.5% to 45.4% (P = .04). The workload for tumor board preparation and discussion did not change significantly. Standardized tumor board reports included 50% (61/122) of the data items carried in the NCR. An automated process was developed to upload information captured in tumor board reports to the NCR database.

CONCLUSION

This study shows implementation of a national standard for tumor board reports improves quality of clinical documentation, without increasing clinical workload. Simultaneously, our work enables data reuse for secondary purposes like cancer registration.

T3 versus T4a staging challenges in deeply invasive colonic adenocarcinomas and correlation with clinical outcomes

Despite the latest 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual guidelines, disagreement still exists among pathologists regarding staging deeply invasive colonic adenocarcinomas ≤1 mm to the serosal surface. In this retrospective study, 151 untreated colonic adenocarcinomas staged initially as either pT3 or pT4a and with available 5-year follow-up data were retrieved and re-categorized: Group 1 (38 cases): pT4a with tumor at the serosa; Group 2 (49 cases): tumor ≤1 mm from the serosa, with intervening reactive fibrosis (40/49) or inflammation (9/49); Group 3 (64 cases): pT3 tumor >1 mm from the serosa. Clinical outcomes were analyzed. Groups 1 and 2 tumors showed significantly lower 5-year recurrence-free survival and lower overall survival rates (log-rank p < 0.001 for both), when compared with Group 3 tumors. Even after adjusting for adjuvant therapy and nodal metastases, the proportional hazards ratios for the risk of death (p < 0.001) and risk of recurrence (p = 0.005) showed significantly higher risk in Groups 1 and 2 compared with Group 3. The synchronous nodal (p = 0.012) and metachronous distant metastases (p = 0.004) were also significantly more in Groups 1 and 2 versus Group 3. Colonic adenocarcinomas ≤1 mm from the serosal surface behaved more akin to "bona fide" pT4a tumors at the serosal surface in our study with regards to clinical outcomes. We recommend these tumors be staged as pT4a rather than pT3, as supported by outcome data in our study. We hope this will also ensure reproducibility and consistency in staging these tumors across institutions.

Challenges with colorectal cancer staging: results of an international study

Challenges exist with standardized colorectal cancer reporting despite adoption of the American Joint Committee on Cancer-Staging Manual 8th edition. We performed this study to gauge current practice patterns among a diverse group of surgical pathologists. A web-based questionnaire depicting problematic issues and images related to colorectal carcinoma staging was circulated among 118 surgical pathologists and their responses were correlated with their geographic location (North America vs. Europe vs. others), nature of practice (academic vs. community), the sign-out model (gastrointestinal subspecialty vs. general surgical pathology), and years of professional experience. We found that a substantial number of practicing pathologists ignore recommended-staging criteria in specific settings, particularly with respect to assessment of advanced T stage. Tumors that communicated with the serosa through inflammatory foci were staged as pT3 (49%) or pT4a (51%) by nearly equal numbers of pathologists regardless of level of experience, the sign-out model, or geographic location. Only 65% assigned T stage and margin status based on extent of viable tumor in the neoadjuvant setting. One-third of pathologists, particularly those in Europe (p = 0.015), classified acellular mucin deposits as N1 disease when detected in treatment-naive cases. Nearly 50% of pathologists classified isolated tumor cells (i.e., deposits <0.2 mm) in lymph nodes as metastatic disease (i.e., pN1, p = 0.02). Our results suggest that pathologists ignore recommendations that are based on insufficient data and apply individualized criteria when faced with situations that are not addressed in the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual 8th edition. These variations in practice limit the ability to compare outcome data across different institutions and draw attention to areas that require further study.

Radiologist and multidisciplinary team clinician opinions on the quality of MRI rectal cancer staging reports: how are we doing?

AIM

To evaluate the current opinion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports amongst specialist clinicians involved in colorectal cancer multidisciplinary teams (CRC MDTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Active participants at 16 UK CRC MDTs across a population of 5.7 million were invited to complete a questionnaire, this included 22 closed and three open questions. Closed questions used ordinal (Likert) scales to judge the subjective inclusion of tumour descriptors and impressions on the clarity and consistency of the MRI report. Open (free-text) questions allowed overall feedback and suggestions.

RESULTS

A total of 69 participants completed the survey (21 radiologists and 48 other CRC MDT clinicians). Both groups highlighted that reports commonly omit the status of the circumferential resection margin (CRM; 83% versus 81% inclusion, other clinicians and radiologists, respectively, p>0.05), presence or absence of extra-mural venous invasion (EMVI; 67% versus 57% inclusion, p>0.05), and lymph node status (90% inclusion in both groups). Intra-radiologist agreement across MRI examinations is reported as 75% by other clinicians. Free-text comments included suggestions for template-style reports.

CONCLUSION

Both groups recognise a proportion of MRI reports are suboptimal with key tumour descriptors omitted. There are also concerns around the presentation style of MRI reports and inter- and intra-radiologist report variability. The widespread implementation of standardised report templates may improve completeness and clarity of MRI reports for rectal cancer and thus clinical management and outcomes in rectal cancer.

Standardised reports with a template format are superior to free text reports: the case for rectal cancer reporting in clinical practice

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows accurate assessment and preoperative staging of rectal cancers. Therefore, complete MRI reports are vital to treatment planning. Significant variability may exist in their content and completeness. Template-style reporting can improve reporting standards, but its use is not widespread. Given the implications for treatment, we have evaluated current clinical practice amongst specialist gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists to measure the quality of rectal cancer staging MRI reports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen United Kingdom (UK) colorectal cancer multi-disciplinary teams (CRC-MDTs) serving a population over 5 million were invited to submit up to 10 consecutive rectal cancer primary staging MRI reports from January 2016 for each radiologist participating in the CRC-MDT. Reports were compared to a reference standard based on recognised staging and prognostic factors influencing case management RESULTS: Four hundred ten primary staging reports were submitted from 41 of 42 (97.6%) eligible radiologists. Three hundred sixty reports met the inclusion criteria, of these, 81 (22.5%) used a template. Template report usage significantly increased recording of key data points versus non-template reports for extra-mural venous invasion (EMVI) status (98.8% v 51.6%, p < 0.01) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) status (96.3% v 65.9%, p < 0.01). Local tumour stage (97.5% v 93.5%, NS) and nodal status (98.8% v 96.1%, NS) were reported and with similar frequency.

CONCLUSION

Rectal cancer primary staging reports do not meet published standards. Template-style reports have significant increases in the inclusion of key tumour descriptors. This study provides further support for their use to improve reporting standards and outcomes in rectal cancer.

KEY POINTS

• MRI primary staging of rectal cancer requires detailed tumour descriptions as these alter the neoadjuvant and surgical treatments. • Currently, rectal cancer MRI reports in clinical practice do not provide sufficient detail on these tumour descriptors. • The use of template-style reports for primary staging of rectal cancer significantly improves report quality compared to free-text reports.

A Review of Current Challenges in Colorectal Cancer Reporting

Context.—

Pathologic assessment of colorectal cancer resection specimens plays an important role in postsurgical management and prognostication in patients with colorectal cancer. Challenges exist in the evaluation and reporting of these specimens, either because of difficulties in applying existing guidelines or related to newer concepts.

Objective.—

To address challenging areas in colorectal cancer pathology and to provide an overview of the literature, current guidelines, and expert recommendations for the handling of colorectal cancer resection specimens in everyday practice.

Data Sources.—

PubMed (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) literature review; reporting protocols of the College of American Pathologists, the Royal College of Pathologists of the United Kingdom, and the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum; and classification manuals of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union for International Cancer Control.

Conclusions.—

This review has addressed issues and challenges affecting quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting. High-quality pathology reporting is essential for prognostication and management of patients with colorectal cancer.

Can the completeness of radiological cancer staging reports be improved using proforma reporting? A prospective multicentre non-blinded interventional study across 21 centres in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Following a diagnosis of cancer, the detailed assessment of prognostic stage by radiology is a crucial determinant of initial therapeutic strategy offered to patients. Pretherapeutic stage by imaging is known to be inconsistently documented. We tested whether the completeness of cancer staging radiology reports could be improved through a nationally introduced pilot of proforma-based reporting for a selection of six common cancers.

DESIGN

Prospective interventional study comparing the completeness of radiology cancer staging reports before and after the introduction of proforma reporting.

SETTING

Twenty-one UK National Health Service hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

1283 cancer staging radiology reports were submitted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Radiology staging reports across the six cancers types were evaluated before and after the implementation of proforma-based reporting. Report completeness was assessed using scoring forms listing the presence or absence of predetermined key staging data. Qualitative data regarding proforma implementation and usefulness were collected from questionnaires provided to radiologists and end-users.

RESULTS

Electronic proforma-based reporting was successfully implemented in 15 of the 21 centres during the evaluation period. A total of 787 preproforma and 496 postproforma staging reports were evaluated. In the preproforma group, only 48.7% (5586/11 470) of key staging items were present compared with 87.3% (6043/6920) in the postproforma group. Thus, the introduction of proforma reporting produced a 78% improvement in staging completeness . This increase was seen across all cancer types and centres. The majority of participants found proforma reporting improved cancer reporting quality for their clinical practice .

CONCLUSION

The implementation of proforma reporting results in a significant improvement in the completeness of cancer staging reports. Proforma-based assessment of cancer stage enables objective comparisons of patient outcomes across centres. It should therefore become an auditable quality standard for cancer care.

Completeness of pathology reports in stage II colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The completeness of the pathological examination of resected colon cancer specimens is important for further clinical management. We reviewed the pathological reports of 356 patients regarding the five factors (pT-stage, tumor differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, tumor perforation and lymph node metastasis status) that are used to identify high-risk stage II colon cancers, as well as their impact on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

All patients with stage II colon cancer who were included in the first five years of the MATCH study (1 July 2007 to 1 July 2012) were selected (n = 356). The hazard ratios of relevant risk factors were calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards analyses.

RESULTS

In as many as 69.1% of the pathology reports, the desired information on one or more risk factors was considered incomplete. In multivariable analysis, age (HR: 1.07, 95%CI 1.04-1.10, p < .001), moderately- (HR: 0.35, 95%CI 0.18-0.70, p = .003) and well (HR 0.11, 95%CI 0.01-0.89, p = .038) differentiated tumors were significantly associated with OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathology reports should better describe the five high-risk factors, in order to enable proper patient selection for further treatment. Chemotherapy may be offered to stage II patients only in select instances, yet a definitive indication is still unavailable.

The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review

Pathology reporting is evolving from a traditional narrative report to a more structured synoptic report. Narrative reporting can cause misinterpretation due to lack of information and structure. In this systematic review, we evaluate the impact of synoptic reporting on completeness of pathology reports and quality of pathology evaluation for solid tumours. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies describing the effect of synoptic reporting implementation on completeness of reporting and quality of pathology evaluation of solid malignant tumours. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies, except one, reported an increased overall completeness of pathology reports after introduction of synoptic reporting (SR). Most frequently studied cancers were breast (n = 9) and colorectal cancer (n = 16). For breast cancer, narrative reports adequately described 'tumour type' and 'nodal status'. Synoptic reporting resulted in improved description of 'resection margins', 'DCIS size', 'location' and 'presence of calcifications'. For colorectal cancer, narrative reports adequately reported 'tumour type', 'invasion depth', 'lymph node counts' and 'nodal status'. Synoptic reporting resulted in increased reporting of 'circumferential margin', 'resection margin', 'perineural invasion' and 'lymphovascular invasion'. In addition, increased numbers of reported lymph nodes were found in synoptic reports. Narrative reports of other cancer types described the traditional parameters adequately, whereas for 'resection margins' and '(lympho)vascular/perineural invasion', implementation of synoptic reporting was necessary. Synoptic reporting results in improved reporting of clinical relevant data. Demonstration of clinical impact of this improved method of pathology reporting is required for successful introduction and implementation in daily pathology practice.

A Comprehensive Study of Extramural Venous Invasion in Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer is a common malignancy and a leading cause of cancer related death. Cancer staging following resection is key to determining any adjuvant therapy in those patients with high risk disease. In colorectal cancer, tumour stage and lymph node stage are the main pathological factors which have been considered to influence outcome. Increasing emphasis is now being placed on other factors, especially the presence of extramural venous invasion (EMVI). It is important to understand the relationship of EMVI with other pathological factors and to confirm that in an individual centre that EMVI is being detected at an appropriate rate and is of prognostic significance. This comprehensive study assesses the reporting and prognostic significance of EMVI in a single centre, using prospectively collected data from histopathology reports of a cohort of 2405 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer over a nine year period. Overall, EMVI was reported in 27.9% of colorectal cancer excision specimens. In tumours (n = 1928) that had not received neoadjuvant therapy, the presence of EMVI varied significantly depending on tumour site (χ2 = 12.03, p<0.005), tumour stage (χ2 = 268.188, p<0.001), lymph node stage (χ2 = 294.368, p<0.001) and Dukes' stage (χ2 = 253.753, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed EMVI as a significant independent prognostic indicator (p<0.001). In conclusion, the presence of EMVI as an independent prognostic indicator is shown and is related to other pathological and prognostic factors. This study emphasises the requirement for the accurate identification of EMVI in colorectal cancer excision specimens and also understanding the relationship of EMVI with other prognostic factors.