Human Pathology
Volume 38, Issue 9 , Pages 1305-1309.e4, September 2007

Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma

  • Jonathan I. Epstein, MD

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Pathology, Urology, and Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
  • ,
  • John Srigley, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, The Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5M2N1
  • ,
  • David Grignon, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
  • ,
  • Peter Humphrey, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
  • ,
  • on behalf of the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

Received 15 May 2007; accepted 16 May 2007.

Summary 

It has been evident for decades that pathology reports are very variable even within a single institution. Standardization of reporting is the optimal way to insure that information necessary for patient management, prognostic and predictive factor assessment, grading, staging, analysis of outcomes, and tumor registries are included in pathology reports. The ADASP has chosen a pathologist expert in each field to assemble a group from within the pathology community (with clinician input if desired) to write specific cancer protocols. These were then approved by the ADASP council and subsequently by the membership. The American College of Surgery Commission on Cancer (COC) accredits cancer centers in the United States. Recently, the COC decided to require elements, deemed as essential by the CAP, to be described in all pathology reports in their accredited cancer centers as of January 2004. Importantly, they do not require that the specific College of Pathologists (CAP) protocols or synoptic reports be used. ADASP has updated all of its protocols to comply with the COC requirements in the form of uniform checklists. The checklists use the staging criteria cited in the American Joint Committee on Cancer 2002 staging manual (sixth edition) but include a variety of other references listed in each of the checklists. Moreover, the checklists are formatted for ease of use. They may be used as templates for uniform reporting and are designed to be compatible with voice–activated transcription. The different elements in these revised ADASP diagnostic checklists have been divided into Required and Optional. The term Required in this context only signifies compliance with the COC guidelines. ADASP realizes that specimens and practices vary, and it will not be possible to report these elements in every case. However, ADASP hopes that pathologists will find these checklists useful in daily clinical practice while facilitating compliance with the new COC requirements.

Keywords: Prostate Practice Guidelines, Practice Guidelines, ADASP

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0046-8177(07)00292-4

doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2007.05.015

Refers to erratum:

  • Erratum for “Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma” [Hum Pathol 38 (2007) 1305–1309]

    Jonathan I. Epstein, John Srigley, David Grignon, Peter Humphrey
    Human Pathology November 2007 (Vol. 38, Issue 11, Page 1725)

Human Pathology
Volume 38, Issue 9 , Pages 1305-1309.e4, September 2007