PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10764439

Pathology data in the central databases of multicenter randomized trials need to be based on pathology reports and controlled by trained quality managers.

I D Nagtegaal·E K Kranenbarg·J Hermans·C J van de Velde·J H van Krieken
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: Randomized multicenter trials form the basis of health care development. Regarding cancer research, pathology data are crucial. To maintain the quality of these trials, the auditing of subsequent processes is necessary. The aim of the present study was to examine the completeness and accuracy of data obtained from a special-purpose standardized pathology form compared with the data available through traditional hospital pathology reports. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparison of pathology data case record forms with hospital pathology reports was performed using the data from 300 patients with primary rectal cancer. All of these patients had been included in a large multicenter trial in the Netherlands. Three independent audits were carried out. Special attention was given to the accuracy of parameters, which are important for prognosis and treatment decisions. Furthermore, various factors that possibly influence the occurrence of errors were investigated. RESULTS: Quality control of the pathology data revealed a high accuracy of 86.5% of all data items. However, only one third of the forms were complete and correct. Missing values were most prominent in the number of lymph nodes examined, whereas most errors were made in relation to the circumferential margin. Trained review pathologists made fewer major errors. Discrepancies were detected in all control rounds. CONCLUSION: Successive rounds of quality control are required for accuracy and completeness of pathology data in multicenter trials. In addition to the special-purpose pathology forms, original pathology reports have to be collected, and the data should also be controlled by a trained pathology quality manager.

Explore related subjects

Databases, FactualHumansMedical RecordsMulticenter Studies as TopicNeoplasmsPathology, ClinicalQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I D Nagtegaal, E K Kranenbarg, J Hermans, C J van de Velde, J H van Krieken. 2000. Pathology data in the central databases of multicenter randomized trials need to be based on pathology reports and controlled by trained quality managers.. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.8.1771

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Performance of the FearID earprint identification system.

The Forensic Ear Identification (FearID) research project was started in order to study the strength of evidence of earprints found on crime scenes. For this purpose, a sample of earprints from 1229 donors over three countries was collected. From each donor three left and three right earprints were gathered. On the one hand, operators denoted contours of the earprints to facilitate segmentation of the images, on the other anthropological specialists denoted anatomically specific locations. On the basis of this, methods for automated classification were developed and used for training of a system that classifies pairs of prints as 'matching' or 'non-matching'. Comparing lab quality prints, the system has an equal error rate of 4%. Starting from a reference database containing two prints per ear, hitlist behaviour is such that in 90% of all query searches the best hit is in the top 0.1% of the list. The results become less favourable (equal error rate of 9%) for print/mark comparisons.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed2007

Normal limits of ejection fraction and volumes determined by gated SPECT in clinically normal patients without cardiac events: a study based on the J-ACCESS database.

PURPOSE: Quantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is known to have high accuracy and precision for measurement of the principal cardiac functional parameters. We hypothesised that normal values for EF and LV volumes may differ among nationalities, and that optimal threshold values specific to the study population are required. METHODS: Among 4,670 consecutively registered patients for a J-ACCESS (Japanese investigation regarding prognosis based on gated SPECT) study from 117 hospitals, a total of 268 (149 women, 119 men) were selected who had no baseline cardiac diseases and had experienced no cardiac events during the preceding 3-year period. A gated SPECT study was performed with 99mTc-tetrofosmin and analysed with Cedars Sinai Medical Center's quantitative gated SPECT (QGS) software. The results in respect of ejection fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV) and stroke volume (SV), and EDV, ESV and SV normalised by body surface area (EDVI, ESVI and SVI), were calculated and summarised to obtain normal limits. RESULTS: EF for women and men was 74 +/- 9% and 63 +/- 7%, respectively (p < 0.0001). EDV, ESV and SV were significantly smaller in women than in men. Based on multiple regressions for linear models, the primary and secondary predictors of EF, EDVI, ESVI were gender and age. By stepwise multiple regression analysis, a statistically significant third predictor for EDV, ESV, SV and SVI was body weight. No colinearity was found between age and body weight. Important factors for the studied Japanese population included a high incidence of small hearts in women and the relatively advanced age of the population (the mean age +/-SD was 64.1 +/- 10.0 years for women and 60.9 +/- 11.7 years for men). CONCLUSION: EF and volumes determined by gated SPECT with QGS were significantly affected by gender and age, with body weight as a third predictor for volumes. Moreover, the normal limits were so specific for the population studied that standards appropriate for the study in question should be utilised.

Databases, Factual↗