Search

Background and Objectives: Current national or regional guidelines for the pathology reporting on invasive breast cancer differ in certain aspects, resulting in divergent reporting practice and a lack of comparability of data. Here we report on a new international dataset for the pathology reporting of resection specimens with invasive cancer of the breast. The dataset was produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major (inter‐)national pathology and cancer organizations. Methods and Results: The established ICCR process for dataset development was followed. An international expert panel consisting of breast pathologists, a surgeon, and an oncologist prepared a draft set of core and noncore data items based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or noncore element, its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the document was finalized and ratified, and the dataset, which includes a synoptic reporting guide, was published on the ICCR website. Conclusions: This first international dataset for invasive cancer of the breast is intended to promote high‐quality, standardized pathology reporting. Its widespread adoption will improve consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will help to improve the management of invasive breast cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major (inter‐)national pathology and cancer organisations, is an initiative aimed at providing a unified international approach to reporting cancer. ICCR recently published new data sets for the reporting of invasive breast carcinoma, surgically removed lymph nodes for breast tumours and ductal carcinoma in situ, variants of lobular carcinoma in situ and low‐grade lesions. The data set in this paper addresses the neoadjuvant setting. The aim is to promote high‐quality, standardised reporting of tumour response and residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment that can be used for subsequent management decisions for each patient. Methods: The ICCR convened expert panels of breast pathologists with a representative surgeon and oncologist to critically review and discuss current evidence. Feedback from the international public consultation was critical in the development of this data set. Results: The expert panel concluded that a dedicated data set was required for reporting of breast specimens post‐neoadjuvant therapy with inclusion of data elements specific to the neoadjuvant setting as core or non‐core elements. This data set proposes a practical approach for handling and reporting breast resection specimens following neoadjuvant therapy. The comments for each data element clarify terminology, discuss available evidence and highlight areas with limited evidence that need further study. This data set overlaps with, and should be used in conjunction with, the data sets for the reporting of invasive breast carcinoma and surgically removed lymph nodes from patients with breast tumours, as appropriate. Key issues specific to the neoadjuvant setting are included in this paper. The entire data set is freely available on the ICCR website. Conclusions: High‐quality, standardised reporting of tumour response and residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment are critical for subsequent management decisions for each patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Mesothelioma is a rare malignancy of the serosal membranes that is commonly related to exposure to asbestos. Despite extensive research and clinical trials, prognosis to date remains poor. Consistent, comprehensive and reproducible pathology reporting form the basis of all future interventions for an individual patient, but also ensures that meaningful data are collected to identify predictive and prognostic markers. Methods and results: This article details the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) process and the development of the international consensus mesothelioma reporting data set. It describes the 'core' and 'non‐core' elements to be included in pathology reports for mesothelioma of all sites, inclusive of clinical, macroscopic, microscopic and ancillary testing considerations. An international expert panel consisting of pathologists and a medical oncologist produced a set of data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence, and in light of the changes in the 2021 WHO Classification of Tumours. The commentary focuses particularly upon new entities such as mesothelioma in situ and provides background on relevant and essential ancillary testing as well as implementation of the new requirement for tumour grading. Conclusion: We recommend widespread and consistent implementation of this data set, which will facilitate accurate reporting and enhance the consistency of data collection, improve the comparison of epidemiological data, support retrospective research and ultimately help to improve clinical outcomes. To this end, all data sets are freely available worldwide on the ICCR website (www.iccr‐cancer.org/data‐sets). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Thymic epithelial tumours (TET), including thymomas and thymic carcinomas and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms, are malignant neoplasms that can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Recently, an updated version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Thoracic Tumours 5th Edition, 2021 has been released, which included various changes to the classification of these neoplasms. In addition, in 2017 the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) / American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) published the 8th Edition Staging Manual which, for the first time, includes a TNM staging that is applicable to thymomas, thymic carcinomas, and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Methods and Results: To standardize reporting of resected TET and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms the accrediting bodies updated their reporting protocols. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), which represents a collaboration between various National Associations of Pathology, updated its 2017 histopathology reporting guide on TET and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms accordingly. This report will highlight important changes in the reporting of TET and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms based on the 2021 WHO, emphasize the 2017 TNM staging, and also comment on the rigour and various uncertainties for the pathologist when trying to follow that staging. Conclusion: The ICCR dataset provides a comprehensive, standardized template for reporting of resected TET and thymic neuroendocrine neoplasms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Operation report documentation is essential for safe patient care and team communication, yet it is often imperfect. This qualitative study aims to understand surgeons' perspectives on operation report documentation, with surgeons reviewing cleft palate repair operation reports. It aims to determine how surgeons write an operation report (in narrative and synoptic report formats) and explore the consequences of incomplete documentation on patient care. Methods: A qualitative semi‐structured interview was conducted with cleft surgeons who were asked to consider operation reports and hypothetical clinical cases. Eight operation reports performed at one centre for cleft palate repair were randomly selected for review. Results: An operation report's purpose—patient care, complication documentation, future surgery, and research—will influence the detail documented. All cleft palate repair operation reports had important information missing. Synoptic report writing provides clearer documentation; however, narrative report writing may be a more robust communication and education tool. Surgeons described a bell‐curve response in the level of training required to document an operation report—residents knew too little, fellows documented clearly, and Consultants documented briefer reports to highlight salient points. Conclusions: An understanding of surgeons' perspectives on operation report documentation is richer after this study. Surgeons know that clear documentation is essential for patient care and a skill that must be taught to trainees; barriers may be the documentation method. The flexibility of a hybrid operation report format is necessary for surgical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Soft‐tissue tumours are rare and both accurate diagnosis and proper treatment represent a global challenge. Current treatment guidelines also recommend review by specialised pathologists. Here we report on international consensus‐based datasets for the pathology reporting of biopsy and resection specimens of soft‐tissue sarcomas. The datasets were produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of international pathology and cancer organisations. Methods and results: According to the ICCR's guidelines for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pathologists, a surgical oncologist, and a medical oncologist produced a set of core and noncore data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. All professionals involved were subspecialised soft‐tissue sarcoma experts and affiliated with tertiary referral centres. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or noncore element, its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the documents were finalised and ratified, and the datasets, which included a synoptic reporting guide, were published on the ICCR website. Conclusion: These first international datasets for soft‐tissue sarcomas are aimed to promote high‐quality, standardised pathology reporting. Their adoption will improve consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will help to improve patient's management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007–2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices. Results: One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives: Bone tumours are relatively rare and, as a consequence, treatment in a centre with expertise is required. Current treatment guidelines also recommend review by a specialised pathologist. Here we report on international consensus‐based datasets for the pathology reporting of biopsy and resection specimens of bone sarcomas. The datasets were produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major (inter‐)national pathology and cancer organisations. Methods and results: According to the ICCR's process for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pathologists, an oncologic orthopaedic surgeon, a medical oncologist, and a radiologist produced a set of core and noncore data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. All professionals involved were bone tumour experts affiliated with tertiary referral centres. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or noncore element, its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the documents were finalised and ratified, and the datasets, including a synoptic reporting guide, were published on the ICCR website. Conclusion: These first international datasets for bone sarcomas are intended to promote high‐quality, standardised pathology reporting. Their widespread adoption will improve the consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will help to improve management of bone sarcoma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours of the gastrointestinal tract and are among the most frequent sarcomas. Accurate diagnosis, classification, and reporting are critical for prognostication and patient management, including selection of appropriate targeted therapy. Here we report on international consensus‐based datasets for the pathology reporting of biopsy and resection specimens of GIST. The datasets were produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major international pathology and cancer organizations. An international expert panel consisting of pathologists, a surgical oncologist, and a medical oncologist produced a set of core and noncore data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. All professionals involved were subspecialized soft tissue tumour experts and affiliated with tertiary referral centres. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain its clinical relevance and the rationale for selection as a core or noncore element. Following international public consultation, the datasets, which include synoptic reporting guides, were finalized and ratified, and published on the ICCR website. These first international datasets for GIST are intended to promote high‐quality, standardised pathology reporting. Their widespread adoption will improve consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will ultimately help to improve the management of patients with GIST. All the ICCR datasets, including these on GIST, are freely available worldwide on the ICCR website (www.iccr‐cancer.org/datasets). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To describe a new international dataset for pathology reporting of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), variants of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) and low‐grade lesions (encapsulated papillary carcinoma, solid papillary carcinoma in situ, Paget's disease) produced by the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Methods and results: The ICCR, a global alliance of pathology bodies, uses a rigorous and efficient process for the development of evidence‐based, structured datasets for pathology reporting of common cancers. Their aim is to support quality pathology reporting and engender understanding between the breast surgeon, pathologist, and oncologist for optimal and uniform patient management globally. Here we describe the dataset for DCIS, some variants of LCIS (namely the pleomorphic and the florid variants), and low‐grade lesions by a multidisciplinary panel of internationally recognized experts. The agreed dataset comprises 12 core (required) and five noncore (recommended) elements suitable for both developed and low‐income jurisdictions, derived from a review of current evidence. Areas of contention were addressed using a pragmatic approach in the absence of evidence. Use of all core elements is the minimum reporting standard for any individual case. Commentary is provided, explaining each element's clinical relevance, definitions to be applied where appropriate for the agreed list of value options and the rationale for considering the element as core or noncore. Conclusion: This first internationally agreed dataset for DCIS, variants of LCIS, and low‐grade lesions reporting will enable their standardization of pathology reporting and enhance clinicopathological communication leading to improved patient outcomes. Widespread adoption will also facilitate international comparisons, multinational clinical trials, and help to improve the management of breast disease globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non‐metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is classified as resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR) or locally advanced (LA). International Consensus Guidelines on these definitions exist, but have not been integrated into everyday Australian practice. The anatomical features on CT imaging lend themselves to synoptic reporting which should enhance completeness, comparability and consistency. Methods: We developed and tested a synoptic report for PDAC derived from the International Consensus Guidelines at two metropolitan pancreatic cancer services to standardize CT reporting in the region. Consecutive scans with suspected PDAC discussed at multidisciplinary meetings were reported using the template between October 2020 and September 2021. A purpose‐built database captured data regarding resectability and image‐quality parameters. Results: Ninety‐five scans were reviewed, 57.9% (N = 55) of which conformed to high‐quality pancreatic CT protocols. Of suboptimal scans, meaningful synoptic reports were able to be issued for a further 24/40 (due to metastases in 9, and unequivocal resectability status in 15). Of 79 classifiable scans, 20% were metastatic, 51% deemed resectable, 16% locally advanced and 13% borderline resectable. Discussion: PDAC lends itself to synoptic reporting given the specific anatomical considerations that classify resectability. This relies, however, on high‐quality CT imaging and it was surprising that over 40% of scans reviewed were of suboptimal quality. Despite this, resectability status according to the International Consensus Guidelines was designated for 83% of scans. Optimal treatment algorithms for LA, BR and resectable disease vary widely underscoring the critical importance of accurately differentiating these anatomic subtypes of PDAC, and thus support further implementation of a synoptic report of this nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Repeat preoperative endoscopy is common for patients with colorectal neoplasms. This can result in treatment delays, patient discomfort, and risks of colonoscopy-related complications. Repeat preoperative endoscopy has been attributed to poor communication between endoscopists and surgeons. In January 2019, mandatory electronic synoptic reporting for endoscopy was implemented to include elements consistent with quality indicators proposed in national guidelines. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the repeat preoperative endoscopy rate for colorectal lesions changed following synoptic report implementation. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 1690 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgical resection for colorectal neoplasms from January 2007 to June 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Canada. Patients who had an index endoscopy documented via synoptic report were compared to those reported via narrative report. Primary outcomes were rates of repeat preoperative endoscopy and inclusion of colonoscopy quality indicators: photo-documentation, tattoo placement, and bowel preparation score. Results: In total, 1429 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection for colorectal cancers or polyps between January 2007 and June 2020 were included. 115 had index endoscopies recorded via synoptic report and 1314 by narrative report. The repeat preoperative endoscopy rate after endoscopies documented by narrative report was 29.07% (95% CI 26.63–31.61) and 25.22% (95% CI 17.58–34.17%) for synoptic report. Patients whose index endoscopies where performed by a practitioner other than their operating surgeon had a re-endoscopy rate of 36.03% (95% CI 32.82–39.33%) after narrative report and 38.81% (95% CI 27.14–51.50%) for synoptic report. Rates of tattoo placement, photo-documentation, and reporting of bowel preparation quality were all significantly increased with synoptic reports (p ≤ 0.003). Conclusions: Endoscopy synoptic reports based on current guidelines were not associated with a decrease in rates of repeat pre-operative endoscopy at a high-volume colorectal cancer centre. Future study should examine guideline deficiencies for this purpose and make necessary modifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years the WHO classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) has evolved. Nomenclature as well as thresholds for grading have changed leading to potential confusion and lack of comparability of tumour reports. Therefore, the European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS) has set‐up an interdisciplinary working group to develop templates for a pathology data set for standardised reporting of NEN. Experts of various disciplines, members of the ENETS Advisory Board, formed a taskforce that discussed and decided on the structure, content and the number of templates needed for reporting the most common NEN. The selection of the required items was based on the WHO classification of digestive system tumours, the WHO classification of tumours of the lung and mediastinum and on "ENETS standard of care" reports. The final proposal of the working group was approved by the ENETS Advisory Board. Templates for synoptic reporting were created for the seven most common NEN primary sites, that is, stomach, duodenum, jejunum‐ileum, appendix, colon‐rectum, pancreas, lung and mediastinum. In addition, a general template for reporting biopsies was designed. The templates allow the recording of the essential items on differentiation, proliferation (Ki‐67 and mitosis), neuroendocrine features (positivity for chromogranin A and synaptophysin) and stage as well as several optional markers especially helpful for the distinction of neuroendocrine tumours (NET) from neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC). In summary, this paper presents the content and development of synoptic reports for most sites of NEN by a multidisciplinary team of international experts in the field, which could help to improve unambiguous reporting of NEN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Current guidelines for pathology reporting on pancreatic cancer differ in certain aspects, resulting in divergent reporting practices and a lack of comparability of data. Here, we report on a new international dataset for pathology reporting on resection specimens with cancer of the exocrine pancreas (ductal adenocarcinoma and acinar cell carcinoma). The dataset was produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), which is a global alliance of major (inter)national pathology and cancer organisations. Methods and results: According to the ICCR's rigorous process for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pancreatic pathologists, a pancreatic surgeon and an oncologist produced a set of core and non‐core data items based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or non‐core element and its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the document was finalised and ratified, and the dataset, which includes a synoptic reporting guide, was published on the ICCR website. Conclusions: This first international dataset for cancer of the exocrine pancreas is intended to promote high‐quality, standardised pathology reporting. Its widespread adoption will improve the consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance the comparability of data, all of which will help to improve the management of pancreatic cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Ileocolic resection (ICR) is the most commonly performed operation in Crohn's disease (CD) patients. The surgical report is a vital tool for accessing information to gauge a patient's long‐term prognosis and guide treatment decisions. Dictated narrative reports are the traditional method for surgical documentation but often lack essential information. The objective was to assess the quality of operation note in CD patients undergoing ICR. Method: This was a multi‐institutional retrospective cohort collaborative study involving four tertiary inflammatory bowel disease referral centres in the USA and Canada. The patients were consecutive CD patients undergoing ICR between 2014 and 2020. There were no interventions. The main outcome measures were the variability and frequency of 28 critical items in the operation note. Results: An analysis of 400 consecutive operation reports in four institutions (n = 100/institution) revealed significant variability in almost all variables. The initial surgical approach and wound protector use were the most consistently or frequently reported across all inflammatory bowel disease centres. The limitation was that this was a retrospective cohort study with inevitable selection bias. Conclusions: This study highlights the need for synoptic reporting in CD patients undergoing ICR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) is a not‐for‐profit organisation sponsored by the Royal Colleges of Pathologists of Australasia and the United Kingdom, the College of American Pathologists, the Canadian Association of Pathologists in association with the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, the European Society of Pathology, the American Society of Clinical Pathology and the Faculty of Pathology, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. Its goal is to produce standardised, internationally agreed‐upon, evidence‐based datasets for cancer pathology reporting throughout the world. This paper describes the development of a cancer dataset by the multidisciplinary ICCR expert panel for the reporting of carcinoma of the urethra in urethrectomy specimens. The dataset is composed of 'required' (mandatory) and 'recommended' (non‐mandatory) elements, which are based on a review of the most recent evidence and supported by explanatory commentary. Fourteen required elements and eight recommended elements were agreed by the international dataset authoring committee to represent the essential/required (core) and recommended (non‐core) information for the reporting of carcinoma of the urethra in urethrectomy specimens. Use of an internationally agreed, structured pathology dataset for reporting carcinoma of the urethra (in urethrectomy specimens) will provide the necessary information for optimal patient management, will facilitate consistent data collection and will provide valuable data for research and international benchmarking. The dataset will be valuable for those countries and institutions that are not in a position to develop their own datasets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently no standardised reporting format for Mohs surgery with its operation reports mostly written in a narrative form making them prone to unintentional errors and omission of necessary data. Synoptic histology reporting is used to describe excised skin cancers such as melanomas and, more recently, squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas. Since Mohs surgery is utilised as the gold standard treatment for locally invasive squamous and basal cell carcinomas, we propose the use of our model of synoptic reporting to ensure the completeness and consistency of Mohs surgery operation reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) is a not-for-profit organization formed by the Royal Colleges of Pathologists of Australasia and the United Kingdom, the College of American Pathologists, the Canadian Association of Pathologists-Association Canadienne des Pathologists in association with the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and the European Society of Pathology. Its goal is to produce standardized, internationally agreed, evidence-based datasets for use throughout the world. Methods and results This article describes the development of a cancer dataset by the multidisciplinary ICCR expert panel for the reporting of thymic epithelial tumours. The dataset includes 'required' (mandatory) and 'recommended' (non-mandatory) elements, which are validated by a review of current evidence and supported by explanatory text. Seven required elements and 12 recommended elements were agreed by the international dataset authoring committee to represent the essential information for the reporting of thymic epithelial tumours. Conclusions The use of an internationally agreed, structured pathology dataset for reporting thymic tumours provides all of the necessary information for optimal patient management, facilitates consistent and accurate data collection, and provides valuable data for research and international benchmarking. The dataset also provides a valuable resource for those countries and institutions that are not in a position to develop their own datasets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Haydu L E, Holt P E, Karim R Z, Madronio C M, Thompson J F, Armstrong B K & Scolyer R A (2010) Histopathology 56, 768–774 Quality of histopathological reporting on melanoma and influence of use of a synoptic template Aims: To evaluate the quality of histopathological reporting for melanoma in a whole population, to assess the influence on quality of the use of a synoptic template and thus to provide an evidence base to guide improvement in reporting melanoma pathology. Methods and results: Histopathology reports of all primary invasive melanomas notified to the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry between October 2006 and October 2007 ( n = 3784) were reviewed. A detailed audit of histopathology reports for consecutively diagnosed primary invasive melanoma over 6 months ( n = 2082) was performed to assess the quality of each report based on compliance with the 2008 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Melanoma in Australia and New Zealand. Only half of the initial excision specimen reports included the essential components necessary to stage a melanoma patient according to the 2002 American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer melanoma staging system. Report format was strongly correlated with completeness and validity of reporting: reports in a synoptic format, with or without a descriptive component, achieved the highest quality levels. Conclusions: Even in a population with a high incidence of melanoma, concordance of pathology reports with current guidelines was comparatively low. Wider adoption of synoptic reporting is likely to increase report quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Although the synoptic format is being increasingly used for primary cutaneous melanoma pathology reporting, no study assessing its value has yet been reported in the literature. The aim was to determine whether the use of synoptic reports increases the frequency with which pathological features that may influence prognosis and guide management are documented. Methods and results: Melanoma pathology reports ( n = 1692) were evaluated; 904 were in a synoptic format [671 Sydney Melanoma Unit (SMU) reports and 233 non-SMU reports] and 788 were non-synoptic (184 SMU reports and 604 non-SMU reports). Reports ( n = 1354) from 677 patients who had both a SMU report and a non-SMU report were compared. Almost all features were reported more frequently in synoptic than in non-synoptic reports ( P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the frequency of reporting the main pathological features between SMU and non-SMU synoptic reports. Synoptic reports were more frequently used by SMU (78%) than by non-SMU pathologists (28%). Conclusions: This is the first study to provide objective evidence that synoptic pathology reports for melanoma are more complete than non-synoptic reports (regardless of whether the reports are generated within or outside a specialist melanoma centre). All synoptic reports should include the facility for free text, be tailored to individual institutional requirements and be updated regularly to be of maximal value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]