The quality of surgical pathology care for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in the U.S.
dc.contributor.author | Miller, David C. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Spencer, Benjamin A. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Shah, Rajal B. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ritchey, Jamie | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Stewart, Andrew K. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Gay, E. Greer | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Dunn, Rodney L. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Wei, John T. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Litwin, Mark S. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2007-09-20T18:39:08Z | |
dc.date.available | 2008-09-08T14:25:14Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2007-06-15 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Miller, David C.; Spencer, Benjamin A.; Shah, Rajal B.; Ritchey, Jamie; Stewart, Andrew K.; Gay, E. Greer; Dunn, Rodney L.; Wei, John T.; Litwin, Mark S. (2007)."The quality of surgical pathology care for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in the U.S.." Cancer 109(12): 2445-2453. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/56046> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0008-543X | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1097-0142 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/56046 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=17492683&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND. The authors assessed adherence with the College of American Pathologists (CAP) radical prostatectomy (RP) practice protocol in a national sample of men who underwent RP for early-stage prostate cancer. METHODS. Using the National Cancer Data Base, the authors identified a nationally representative sample of 1240 men (unweighted) who underwent RP. For each patient, local cancer registrars performed an explicit medical record review to assess patient-level compliance with surgical pathology report documentation of 7 morphologic criteria (ie, quality indicators). Applying the CAP prognostic factor classification framework, composite measures and all-or-none measures of quality indicator compliance were calculated for the following analytic categories: 1) a strict subset of CAP category I prognostic factors (3 indicators), 2) a broad subset of CAP category I factors (6 indicators), and 3) the full set of 7 indicators. RESULTS. Among a weighted sample of 24,420 patients who underwent RP, compliance with documentation of the CAP category I factors varied from 54% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 50–58%) for pathologic tumor, lymph node, metastases classification (according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system) to 97% (95% CI, 96–99%) for Gleason score. In composite, RP pathology reports contained 83% (95% CI, 81–84%), 85% (95% CI, 84–87%), and 79% (95% CI, 78–80%) of the recommended data elements measured by the strict CAP category I subset, the broad CAP category I subset, and the full set of 7 indicators, respectively. In contrast to the generally higher composite scores, only 52% (95% CI, 48–56%) and 41% (95% CI, 37–45%) of men who underwent RP had complete documentation in their pathology reports for the strict and broad CAP category I subsets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS. RP surgical pathology reports contained most of the recommended data elements; however, the frequent absence of pathologic stage provides an opportunity for quality improvement. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 115489 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3118 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Life and Medical Sciences | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Cancer Research, Oncology and Pathology | en_US |
dc.title | The quality of surgical pathology care for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in the U.S. | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Oncology and Hematology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Public Health | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California—Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Urology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Commission on Cancer, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Commission on Cancer, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Commission on Cancer, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California—Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California ; Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California—Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California ; Fax: (310) 206-5343 ; Department of Urology, University of California—Los Angeles, Box 951738, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1738 | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 17492683 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56046/1/22698_ftp.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22698 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Cancer | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.