Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec 30:7:54.
doi: 10.4103/2153-3539.197201. eCollection 2016.

Reporting Gleason grade/score in synoptic reports of radical prostatectomies

Andrew A Renshaw  1 , Mercy Mena-Allauca  2 , Edwin W Gould  1
Affiliations

Reporting Gleason grade/score in synoptic reports of radical prostatectomies

Andrew A Renshaw et al. J Pathol Inform. .

Abstract

Context: The format of a synoptic report can significantly affect the accuracy, speed, and preference with which a reader can retrieve information.

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare different formats of Gleason grading/score in synoptic reports of radical prostatectomies.

Methods: The performance of 16 nonpathologists (cancer registrars, MDs, medical non-MDs, and nonmedical) at identifying specific information in various formatted synoptic reports using a computerized quiz that measured both accuracy and speed.

Results: Compared to the standard format (primary, secondary, tertiary grades, and total score on separate lines), omitting tertiary grade when Not applicable reduced accuracy (72 vs. 97%, P < 0.001) and increased time to retrieve information 63% (P < 0.001). No user preferred to have tertiary grade omitted. Both the biopsy format (primary + secondary = total score, tertiary on a separate line) and the single line format (primary + secondary + (tertiary) -> total score) were associated with increased speed of data extraction (18 and 24%, respectively, P < 0.001). The single line format was more accurate (100% vs. 97%, P = 0.02). No user preferred the biopsy format, and only 7/16 users preferred the single line format.

Conclusions: Different report formats for Gleason grading significantly affect users speed, accuracy, and preference; users do not always prefer either speed or accuracy.

Keywords: Accuracy; College of American Pathologists; Gleason grade; anatomic pathology; prostate; surgical pathology; synoptic report; templates; tumor summaries; usability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Standard format synoptic report
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tertiary grade omitted because it was not applicable/present
Figure 3
Figure 3
Biopsy format synoptic report
Figure 4
Figure 4
Single line synoptic report
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. College of American Pathologists. Inspection Checklist in Anatomic Pathology. 2016. [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 08]. Available from: http://www.cap .
    1. Renshaw MA, Gould EW, Renshaw A. Just say no to the use of no: Alternative terminology for improving anatomic pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:1250–2. - PubMed
    1. Renshaw SA, Mena-Allauca M, Touriz M, Renshaw A, Gould EW. The impact of template format on the completeness of surgical pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:121–4. - PubMed
    1. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of accuracy and speed of information identification by non-pathologists in synoptic reports with different formats. Arch Pathol Lab Med [In press] - PubMed
    1. Valenstein PN. Formatting pathology reports: Applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:84–94. - PubMed