Assessing the Quality of Rectal Cancer Pathology Reports in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol R-04/NRG Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and comprehensive surgical pathology reports are integral to the quality of cancer care. Despite guidelines from the College of American Pathologists, variations in reporting quality continue to exist. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of rectal cancer pathology reports and to identify areas of deficiency and potential sources of reporting variations. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained pathology reports. SETTING: This study is based at the hospitals participating in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol R-04 study. PATIENTS: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing surgical resection between July 2004 and August 2010 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the adherence to the College of American Pathologists guidelines and the impact of synoptic reporting, academic status, rural/urban setting, and hospital bed size on reporting quality. RESULTS: We identified 1004 surgical pathology reports for rectal cancer surgery from 383 hospitals and 755 pathologists. The overall adherence rate to the College of American Pathologists guidelines was 73.3%. Notable reporting deficiencies were found in several key pathology characteristics, including tumor histologic grade (reporting rate 77.8%), radial margin (84.6%), distance from the closest margin (47.9%), treatment effect (47.1%), and lymphovascular (73.1%)/perineural invasions (35.4%). Synoptic reporting use and urban hospital settings were associated with better adherence rates, whereas academic status and hospital bed size had no impact. Reporting variations existed not only between institutions, but also within individual hospitals and pathologists. There was a trend for improved adherence over time (2005 = 65.7% vs 2010 = 82.3%,p <0.001), which coincided with the increased adoption of synoptic reporting by pathologists (2005 vs 2010, 9.4% vs 25.3%,p <0.001). LIMITATIONS: Data were obtained from a restricted setting (ie, hospitals participating in a randomized clinical trial). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variations in the quality of pathology reporting are observed for rectal cancer. The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer mandates that programs meet strict quality standards for surgical pathology reporting. Further improvement is needed in this key aspect of oncology care for patients with rectal cancer.