Early Stage Bladder Cancer: Do Pathology Reports Tell Us What We Need to Know?

Objective To assess a large national sample of bladder cancer pathology reports to determine if they contained the components necessary for clinical decision-making. Methods We examined a random sample of 507 bladder cancer pathology reports from the national Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2016-12, Vol.98, p.58-63
Hauptverfasser: Schroeck, Florian R, Pattison, Erik A, Denhalter, Daniel W, Patterson, Olga V, DuVall, Scott L, Seigne, John D, Robertson, Douglas J, Sirovich, Brenda, Goodney, Philip P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 63
container_issue
container_start_page 58
container_title Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)
container_volume 98
creator Schroeck, Florian R
Pattison, Erik A
Denhalter, Daniel W
Patterson, Olga V
DuVall, Scott L
Seigne, John D
Robertson, Douglas J
Sirovich, Brenda
Goodney, Philip P
description Objective To assess a large national sample of bladder cancer pathology reports to determine if they contained the components necessary for clinical decision-making. Methods We examined a random sample of 507 bladder cancer pathology reports from the national Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to assess whether each included information on the 4 report components explicitly recommended by the College of American Pathologists' protocol for the examination of such specimens: histology, grade, presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen, and microscopic extent. We then assessed variation in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component across Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Results One hundred eight of 507 reports (21%) lacked at least 1 of the 4 components, with microscopic extent and presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen most commonly missing (each in 11% of reports). There was wide variation across facilities in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component, ranging from 0% to 80%. Conclusion One-fifth of bladder cancer pathology reports lack information needed for clinical decision-making. The wide variation in incomplete report rates across facilities implies that some facilities already have implemented best practices assuring complete reporting whereas others have room for improvement. Future work to better understand barriers and facilitators of complete reporting may lead to interventions that improve bladder cancer care.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.040
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5116267</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0090429516305441</els_id><sourcerecordid>1835358294</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-5d44ce04d9758bf1d7cc404d35ade71db007d038fda029b20b962f2da372f2f53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUk1vEzEQtRCIhsJPAPnIZZexd72OObQqoXyIqiDaqkfLsWcTh8062LtF-fc4JFTAhdNo5Dfvjd8bQp4zKBmw5tWqHGPowmJb8tyWIEuo4QGZMMFloZQSD8kEQEFRcyWOyJOUVgDQNI18TI64FAq4qCbk8tzEbkuvBrNA-qYzzmGkM9NbjK_p20C_mGH5S4Z-xU2IQ6LX2HX0JtHbpRnoLdJLREeHQD_14cfpU_KoNV3CZ4d6TG7enV_PPhQXn99_nJ1dFFZwPhTC1bVFqJ2SYjpvmZPW1rmthHEomZsDSAfVtHUGuJpzmKuGt9yZSubSiuqYnOx5N-N8jc5iP0TT6U30axO3Ohiv_37p_VIvwp0WjDW8kZng5YEghu8jpkGvfbL5a6bHMCbNppWoxJSrOkPFHmpjSCliey_DQO-y0Ct9yELvstAgdc4iz734c8f7qd_mZ8DpHoDZqTuPUSfrMVvvfEQ7aBf8fyVO_mGwne-9Nd033GJahTH2OQbNdOIa9NXuIHb3wJoKRF2z6ienx7JN</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1835358294</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Early Stage Bladder Cancer: Do Pathology Reports Tell Us What We Need to Know?</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Schroeck, Florian R ; Pattison, Erik A ; Denhalter, Daniel W ; Patterson, Olga V ; DuVall, Scott L ; Seigne, John D ; Robertson, Douglas J ; Sirovich, Brenda ; Goodney, Philip P</creator><creatorcontrib>Schroeck, Florian R ; Pattison, Erik A ; Denhalter, Daniel W ; Patterson, Olga V ; DuVall, Scott L ; Seigne, John D ; Robertson, Douglas J ; Sirovich, Brenda ; Goodney, Philip P</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To assess a large national sample of bladder cancer pathology reports to determine if they contained the components necessary for clinical decision-making. Methods We examined a random sample of 507 bladder cancer pathology reports from the national Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to assess whether each included information on the 4 report components explicitly recommended by the College of American Pathologists' protocol for the examination of such specimens: histology, grade, presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen, and microscopic extent. We then assessed variation in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component across Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Results One hundred eight of 507 reports (21%) lacked at least 1 of the 4 components, with microscopic extent and presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen most commonly missing (each in 11% of reports). There was wide variation across facilities in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component, ranging from 0% to 80%. Conclusion One-fifth of bladder cancer pathology reports lack information needed for clinical decision-making. The wide variation in incomplete report rates across facilities implies that some facilities already have implemented best practices assuring complete reporting whereas others have room for improvement. Future work to better understand barriers and facilitators of complete reporting may lead to interventions that improve bladder cancer care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-4295</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-9995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.040</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27590253</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Urology</subject><ispartof>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2016-12, Vol.98, p.58-63</ispartof><rights>2016</rights><rights>Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-5d44ce04d9758bf1d7cc404d35ade71db007d038fda029b20b962f2da372f2f53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-5d44ce04d9758bf1d7cc404d35ade71db007d038fda029b20b962f2da372f2f53</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1860-2611</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.040$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27590253$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schroeck, Florian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pattison, Erik A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Denhalter, Daniel W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, Olga V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DuVall, Scott L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seigne, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, Douglas J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirovich, Brenda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodney, Philip P</creatorcontrib><title>Early Stage Bladder Cancer: Do Pathology Reports Tell Us What We Need to Know?</title><title>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><description>Objective To assess a large national sample of bladder cancer pathology reports to determine if they contained the components necessary for clinical decision-making. Methods We examined a random sample of 507 bladder cancer pathology reports from the national Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to assess whether each included information on the 4 report components explicitly recommended by the College of American Pathologists' protocol for the examination of such specimens: histology, grade, presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen, and microscopic extent. We then assessed variation in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component across Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Results One hundred eight of 507 reports (21%) lacked at least 1 of the 4 components, with microscopic extent and presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen most commonly missing (each in 11% of reports). There was wide variation across facilities in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component, ranging from 0% to 80%. Conclusion One-fifth of bladder cancer pathology reports lack information needed for clinical decision-making. The wide variation in incomplete report rates across facilities implies that some facilities already have implemented best practices assuring complete reporting whereas others have room for improvement. Future work to better understand barriers and facilitators of complete reporting may lead to interventions that improve bladder cancer care.</description><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0090-4295</issn><issn>1527-9995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUk1vEzEQtRCIhsJPAPnIZZexd72OObQqoXyIqiDaqkfLsWcTh8062LtF-fc4JFTAhdNo5Dfvjd8bQp4zKBmw5tWqHGPowmJb8tyWIEuo4QGZMMFloZQSD8kEQEFRcyWOyJOUVgDQNI18TI64FAq4qCbk8tzEbkuvBrNA-qYzzmGkM9NbjK_p20C_mGH5S4Z-xU2IQ6LX2HX0JtHbpRnoLdJLREeHQD_14cfpU_KoNV3CZ4d6TG7enV_PPhQXn99_nJ1dFFZwPhTC1bVFqJ2SYjpvmZPW1rmthHEomZsDSAfVtHUGuJpzmKuGt9yZSubSiuqYnOx5N-N8jc5iP0TT6U30axO3Ohiv_37p_VIvwp0WjDW8kZng5YEghu8jpkGvfbL5a6bHMCbNppWoxJSrOkPFHmpjSCliey_DQO-y0Ct9yELvstAgdc4iz734c8f7qd_mZ8DpHoDZqTuPUSfrMVvvfEQ7aBf8fyVO_mGwne-9Nd033GJahTH2OQbNdOIa9NXuIHb3wJoKRF2z6ienx7JN</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Schroeck, Florian R</creator><creator>Pattison, Erik A</creator><creator>Denhalter, Daniel W</creator><creator>Patterson, Olga V</creator><creator>DuVall, Scott L</creator><creator>Seigne, John D</creator><creator>Robertson, Douglas J</creator><creator>Sirovich, Brenda</creator><creator>Goodney, Philip P</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1860-2611</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>Early Stage Bladder Cancer: Do Pathology Reports Tell Us What We Need to Know?</title><author>Schroeck, Florian R ; Pattison, Erik A ; Denhalter, Daniel W ; Patterson, Olga V ; DuVall, Scott L ; Seigne, John D ; Robertson, Douglas J ; Sirovich, Brenda ; Goodney, Philip P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c522t-5d44ce04d9758bf1d7cc404d35ade71db007d038fda029b20b962f2da372f2f53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schroeck, Florian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pattison, Erik A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Denhalter, Daniel W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, Olga V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DuVall, Scott L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seigne, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, Douglas J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirovich, Brenda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodney, Philip P</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schroeck, Florian R</au><au>Pattison, Erik A</au><au>Denhalter, Daniel W</au><au>Patterson, Olga V</au><au>DuVall, Scott L</au><au>Seigne, John D</au><au>Robertson, Douglas J</au><au>Sirovich, Brenda</au><au>Goodney, Philip P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Early Stage Bladder Cancer: Do Pathology Reports Tell Us What We Need to Know?</atitle><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>98</volume><spage>58</spage><epage>63</epage><pages>58-63</pages><issn>0090-4295</issn><eissn>1527-9995</eissn><abstract>Objective To assess a large national sample of bladder cancer pathology reports to determine if they contained the components necessary for clinical decision-making. Methods We examined a random sample of 507 bladder cancer pathology reports from the national Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse to assess whether each included information on the 4 report components explicitly recommended by the College of American Pathologists' protocol for the examination of such specimens: histology, grade, presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen, and microscopic extent. We then assessed variation in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component across Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Results One hundred eight of 507 reports (21%) lacked at least 1 of the 4 components, with microscopic extent and presence vs absence of muscularis propria in the specimen most commonly missing (each in 11% of reports). There was wide variation across facilities in the proportion of reports lacking at least 1 component, ranging from 0% to 80%. Conclusion One-fifth of bladder cancer pathology reports lack information needed for clinical decision-making. The wide variation in incomplete report rates across facilities implies that some facilities already have implemented best practices assuring complete reporting whereas others have room for improvement. Future work to better understand barriers and facilitators of complete reporting may lead to interventions that improve bladder cancer care.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27590253</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.040</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1860-2611</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-4295
ispartof Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2016-12, Vol.98, p.58-63
issn 0090-4295
1527-9995
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5116267
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Urology
title Early Stage Bladder Cancer: Do Pathology Reports Tell Us What We Need to Know?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T14%3A48%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Early%20Stage%20Bladder%20Cancer:%20Do%20Pathology%20Reports%20Tell%20Us%20What%20We%20Need%20to%20Know?&rft.jtitle=Urology%20(Ridgewood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Schroeck,%20Florian%20R&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=98&rft.spage=58&rft.epage=63&rft.pages=58-63&rft.issn=0090-4295&rft.eissn=1527-9995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.040&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1835358294%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1835358294&rft_id=info:pmid/27590253&rft_els_id=S0090429516305441&rfr_iscdi=true