A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Impact on colorectal cancer pathology reporting practice of migration from TNM 5 to TNM 8. | LitMetric

Aims: The introduction of TNM 8 into UK pathology practice in January 2018 considers tumour deposits in colorectal cancer staging for the first time. The impact of this new classification on pathology reporting practices has yet to be evaluated.

Methods And Results: A clinical audit was conducted, comparing consecutive colorectal cancer resection specimens reported under TNM 5 classification guidelines in 2017 (n = 177) and TNM 8 guidelines in 2018 (n = 234). Tumour features (venous invasion, perineural invasion, lymph node metastatic disease, tumour deposits) and changes in reporting practices were evaluated among four specialist gastrointestinal pathologists working within a large pathology department. Adoption of TNM 8 practice led to an approximate doubling in the use of ancillary stains (41.0% of TNM 8 versus 22.0% of TNM 5 cases, P < 0.001) to help evaluate tumours. A narrowing of the range between pathologists was observed in reporting cases as having one or more form of regional, extramural, discontinuous tumour (TNM 5 range = 50.0-79.0%, TNM 8 range = 57.8-65.7%), with no change in the overall proportion of cases reported as such (62.7% versus 62.4%, P = 0.95). However, significant interobserver variation in reporting rates for individual parameters remained.

Conclusion: TNM 8 colorectal cancer staging offers potentially greater reproducibility in pathology reporting of regional, extramural, discontinuous disease with similar proportions of patients reported as having one or more of these forms of tumour spread compared with TNM 5. Further guidance in defining individual features is required to reduce interobserver variation in pathology assessments and to help elucidate the clinical significance of each parameter.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.14116DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

colorectal cancer
12
pathology reporting
8
tnm
8
tumour deposits
8
reporting practices
8
impact colorectal
4
pathology
4
cancer pathology
4
reporting practice
4
practice migration
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!