Imperato Pascal James, Waisman Jerry, Wallen Marcia D, Llewellyn Christine C, Pryor Veronica
Research Development and Epidemiology, IPRO, Lake Success, NY 11042, USA.
Am J Med Qual. 2003 Jul-Aug;18(4):164-70. doi: 10.1177/106286060301800406.
The information contained in pathology reports of breast cancer specimens is of critical importance to treating physicians for selection of local regional treatment, adjuvant therapy, evaluation of therapy, estimation of prognosis, and analysis of outcomes. This information is also of great importance to patients and their families. In 2000, a Breast Cancer Pathology Advisory Group was formed to advise on the design of a project to assess the quality of pathology reports on unilateral extended simple mastectomy (ICD-9-CM procedure code 85.43) specimens from Medicare patients in New York State. This group comprised clinical pathologists, breast surgeons, medical oncologists, clinical breast cancer specialists, and a radiation oncologist. The group suggested that the reports be examined for several elements (quality indicators) that are relevant to patient care and prognosis. Baseline random sample data assessing these elements were established from a random sample of all cases for the calendar year 1999. A random sample of 748 cases (43.5%) of unilateral extended simple mastectomy was chosen from among 1718 cases for the calendar year 1999. Of these, 555 (74.2%) were suitable for review. The remaining 193 (25.8%) cases did not satisfy the inclusion criteria. Aggregate performance on 7 quality indicators (presence of carcinoma, laterality of specimen, number of lymph nodes present, number of positive nodes, documentation of lymph nodes, histologic type, and largest dimension of the tumor) was 83.7% or better, whereas performance was 69.4% or less on 10 others (resection margin status, verification of tumor size, gross observation of the lesion, histologic grade, angiolymphatic invasion, nuclear grade, location of the tumor, mitotic rate, extent of tubule formation, and perineural invasion). The last, perineural invasion, was used as a control element and was not considered an evaluative quality indicator. Performance levels for New York State were significantly lower for histologic grade, resection margin status, and angiolymphatic invasion than in similar studies elsewhere. In addition, there were significant interhospital disparities in the performance levels for these quality indicators. Whereas some hospitals always recorded certain indicators, others never did. This in part reflects differing degrees of adoption of recommended specialty society protocols. The second phase of the project consisted of an educational feedback program involving the directors of pathology laboratories in New York State. The aggregate findings of the baseline study were shared with all the pathologists. In addition, each hospital that performed unilateral extended simple mastectomies during the study period received its own specific data so that it could compare its performance with the aggregate performance. The results of the baseline study also were shared with the New York Pathological Society and the New York State Society of Pathologists. The latter described the results in its newsletter. A postintervention review of the medical charts of a sample of 297 Medicare patients discharged from New York State acute care hospitals with an ICD-9-CM procedure code of 85.43 (unilateral extended simple mastectomy) was conducted for the 6-month period from December 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. The 8 quality indicators, performance for which was below 84% in the baseline, were chosen for this remeasurement. Statistically significant improvements (P < .0001) occurred in all the 8 quality indicators, ranging from 12.6% to 19.9%. The results of this study indicate that the issues identified by breast cancer pathology reports are amenable to improvement. Such improvement can serve both the patients and the treating physicians better in making adjuvant treatment decisions, estimating prognosis, and evaluating outcomes. It also will be of help to patients and their families in making other life decisions.
乳腺癌标本病理报告中的信息对于治疗医生选择局部区域治疗、辅助治疗、评估治疗效果、估计预后以及分析治疗结果至关重要。这些信息对患者及其家属也非常重要。2000年,成立了一个乳腺癌病理咨询小组,就评估纽约州医疗保险患者单侧扩大单纯乳房切除术(ICD-9-CM手术编码85.43)标本病理报告质量的项目设计提供建议。该小组由临床病理学家、乳腺外科医生、医学肿瘤学家、临床乳腺癌专家和一名放射肿瘤学家组成。该小组建议检查报告中的几个与患者护理和预后相关的要素(质量指标)。从1999年全年所有病例的随机样本中建立了评估这些要素的基线随机样本数据。从1999年的1718例病例中随机抽取了748例(43.5%)单侧扩大单纯乳房切除术病例。其中,555例(74.2%)适合审查。其余193例(25.8%)病例不符合纳入标准。7个质量指标(癌的存在、标本的侧别、存在的淋巴结数量、阳性淋巴结数量、淋巴结的记录、组织学类型和肿瘤的最大尺寸)的总体表现为83.7%或更好,而其他10个指标(切除边缘状态、肿瘤大小的核实、病变的大体观察、组织学分级、血管淋巴管侵犯、核分级、肿瘤位置、有丝分裂率、小管形成程度和神经周围侵犯)的表现为69.4%或更低。最后一项,神经周围侵犯,用作对照要素,不被视为评估性质量指标。纽约州在组织学分级、切除边缘状态和血管淋巴管侵犯方面的表现水平明显低于其他地方的类似研究。此外,这些质量指标的表现水平在医院之间存在显著差异。有些医院总是记录某些指标,而其他医院则从未记录。这在一定程度上反映了对推荐的专业学会方案的采用程度不同。该项目的第二阶段包括一个教育反馈项目,涉及纽约州病理实验室主任。基线研究的总体结果与所有病理学家分享。此外,在研究期间进行单侧扩大单纯乳房切除术的每家医院都收到了自己的具体数据,以便能够将其表现与总体表现进行比较。基线研究的结果也与纽约病理学会和纽约州病理学家协会分享。后者在其通讯中描述了结果。在2001年12月1日至2002年5月31日的6个月期间,对从纽约州急性护理医院出院的297例ICD-9-CM手术编码为85.43(单侧扩大单纯乳房切除术)的医疗保险患者的病历进行了干预后审查。选择了8个在基线时表现低于84%的质量指标进行重新测量。所有8个质量指标都出现了具有统计学意义的改善(P <.0001),改善幅度从12.6%到19.9%不等。这项研究的结果表明,乳腺癌病理报告中发现的问题是可以改进的。这种改进可以更好地帮助患者和治疗医生做出辅助治疗决策、估计预后和评估治疗结果。它也将有助于患者及其家属做出其他生活决策。