Recommendations for the reporting of surgical specimens containing uterine cervical neoplasms. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology

Outcome analysis of cervical adenosquamous carcinoma compared with adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare survival between patients with cervical adenocarcinoma (AC) and adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC).

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

POPULATION

All patients with cervical AC or ASC who received definitive treatment from January 1995 to December 2009.

METHODS

Medical and histopathological record review.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 170 women received a histological diagnosis of AC and 42 of ASC. The median follow-up was 56.7 months. There were no significant differences in age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, gravidity or treatment modality between women with AC and ASC. Patients with ASC had a higher percentage of poorly differentiated tumors than those with AC (33.3 vs. 15.3%, respectively; p= 0.014). Five year overall and recurrence-free survival was 66.8 and 58.9%, respectively, for women with AC and 69.5 and 61.9%, respectively, for those with ASC (p= 0.795 and p= 0.892, respectively). Survival outcomes in patients with early or advanced stage disease did not differ between the histological groups. No differences in failure patterns were found between the two groups. The FIGO stage and treatment modality were factors which affected overall and recurrence-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence to suggest that ASC subtypes indicate worse outcome. Cervical ASC could be categorized as one subtype of AC. The FIGO stage and treatment modalities have greater influence on outcomes than histological subtype.

Variability of practice in anatomic pathology and its effect on patient outcomes

Variability in the delivery of medical care negatively affects patient outcomes and contributes to escalating health care costs. Such heterogeneity exists on geographic, provider-related, institutional, and financial levels. Efforts to reduce it have resulted in the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines that have been only inconsistently adopted. Testing patterns in anatomic pathology (AP) also manifest considerable inconsistency, further contributing to suboptimal health outcomes and increased costs. Test variability in AP can be identified in its clinician-dependent preanalytic aspect and in the analytic phase as well, including the gross prosection of specimens, their processing, and reporting formats. To address selected facets of these issues, pathologists have developed practice guidelines that generally are based on "expert" opinion, representing the weakest form of evidence. Interpretative variability in AP has been investigated in numerous published studies that have measuring the "kappa statistic." Few of those analyses have addressed the impact of diagnostic disagreement on patient care; in addition, proposed and effective methods to reduce interpretative variability have only rarely been included.

Quality of placental pathology reports

The surgical report is an important means of documenting normal and abnormal findings, and for distilling such information into a meaningful clinico-pathologic correlation. An audit of the quality of placental reports from four laboratories was performed using an arbitrary numerical scoring scheme that examined the gross, histologic, and commentary components of each report. The mean scores from the four laboratories were not statistically different from each other. Three (2%) and 48 (33%) of the 147 singleton placentas scored less than 50 and 75%, respectively, on this scoring scheme. None and 14 (41%) of the placentas from 34 multiple pregnancies scored less than 50 and 75%, respectively. Different aspects of the gross and histologic examination were reported variably by the laboratories. Commentaries on gross or histologic abnormalities, and in relation to clinical indications, were inconsistently reported. The standards of placental surgical reporting can be improved. The use of templates and checklists for reporting of placentas may be considered.