Anonymized data set (complete).

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div

Positive lymph node count by pathologist.

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div

S1 Fig -

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div

y modifier by pathologist & > = 12 lymph nodes.

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div

Lymph node count by ‘y’ TNM staging modifier status.

The non-overlap of the notches is in keeping with a significant statistical difference (p<0.05) between the two groups, as also found with a T-test.</p

Lymph node count by pathologist.

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div

Box-whisker plot of lymph node count by pathologist (for pathologists interpreting greater than 50 cases).

Any two boxes with non-overlapped notches have approximately a 95% confidence interval or greater for the difference between the medians; this would roughly correspond to p<0.05.</p

Description of data.

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div

All tables including supplemental tables.

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div

S2 Fig -

BackgroundLymph node status and lymph node count (LNC) are predictors of colorectal cancer outcome. Under-sampling of lymph nodes may lead to clinically relevant stage migration.MethodsColorectal cancer (CRC) cases with a synoptic report, accessioned 2012–2020 at a regional laboratory, were extracted and retrospectively studied. LNC, positive lymph node count (PLNC), tumour deposits present (TDpos), and ‘y’ (staging) prefix (YS) were retrieved and tabulated by pathologist using custom software. Statistical analyses were done with R.Data and resultsThe cohort had 2,543 CRC resections. Seventeen pathologists interpreted >50 cases (range: 56–356) each and collectively saw 2,074. After cases with unavailable data were purged, 2,028 cases remained with 43,996 lymph nodes, of which 2,637/43,996 were positive. 368 cases had a ‘y’ prefix, and 379 had TDpos. The 17 pathologists’ median LNC/case was 19.0 (range: 14.0–24.0), and the mean PLNC per case was 1.4 (range: 1.0–2.0). Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests showed there were differences in LNC (pConclusionsPositive lymph node call rate has a good consistency in the laboratory; however, lymph node count varies significantly between pathologists. Standardized counting criteria are needed to improve uniformity and could be aided by synoptic reporting data.</div