Dataset for Reporting of Prostate Carcinoma in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR)
James G Kench, Brett Delahunt, David F Griffith, Peter A Humphrey, Thomas McGowan, Kiril Trpkov, Murali Varma, Thomas M Wheeler, John R Srigley. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand; University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Carlo Fidani Peel Regional Cancer Centre, Mississauga, ON, Canada; University of Calgary, Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, AB, Canada; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Background: A quadripartite group, the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (including the CAP, RCPath, RCPA and the Canadian Association of Pathologists/Canadian Partnership Against Cancer) was established in 2011 to develop standardized cancer reporting protocols/checklists, reducing the burden of dataset development and facilitating international comparisons. A pilot project to harmonize the CAP, RCPath and RCPA datasets for radical prostatectomy specimens was instituted with the aim of producing a common, internationally agreed, evidence-based dataset for prostate cancer reporting.
Design: The ICCR prostate cancer expert review panel analysed the three existing datasets, identifying concordant items and classifying these data elements as 'required' (mandatory) or 'recommended' (non-mandatory), based on the published literature up to August 2011. Required elements were defined as those which have agreed evidentiary support at NHMRC Level III-2 or above. Consensus response values were formulated for each item.
Results: Twelve concordant data elements were identified including: size and weight of the prostate; type of carcinoma; grade; presence or absence of lymph node dissection, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and positive surgical margins; location of any involved margin, total number of lymph nodes and positive number of nodes identified, and TNM categories. On review, all but one (size of prostate) were included as required elements for tumor staging, grading or prediction of prognosis. There was minor discordance between the three existing datasets for another eight items with two of these being added to the required dataset. Another eleven elements with a lesser level of evidentiary support were included in the recommended dataset.
Conclusions: This process was found to be an efficient method to produce an evidence-based dataset for prostate cancer. Such internationally agreed datasets should facilitate meaningful comparison of benchmarking data, epidemiological studies and clinical trials.
Category: Genitourinary (including renal tumors)
Monday, March 4, 2013 1:00 PM
Poster Session II # 158, Monday Afternoon