Improving anatomic pathology in sub-Saharan Africa to support cancer care

Abstract: Objectives Cancer care requires both accurate pathologic diagnosis as well as pathologic cancer staging. We evaluated three approaches to training pathologists in sub-Saharan Africa to perform pathologic cancer staging of breast, cervix, prostate, and colorectal cancers. Methods One of three training methods was used at each workshop: didactic, case-based testing (CBT), or a blended approach. The project involved 52 participants from 16 pathology departments in 11 countries in East, Central, and Southern Africa. Evaluation of each method included pre- and postworkshop knowledge assessments, online pre- and postworkshop surveys of practice changes at the individual and institutional levels, and selected site visits. Results While CBT resulted in the highest overall average postassessment individual scores, both CBT and blended approaches resulted in 19% increases in average scores from pre- to postworkshop assessments. Institutions that participated in the blended workshop had increased changes in practice as indicated by the institutional survey. Conclusions Both CBT and a blended approach are effective methods for training pathologists in pathologic cancer staging. Both are superior to traditional lectures alone

Creation and pilot testing of cases for case-based learning: A pedagogical approach for pathology cancer diagnosis

Background: Case-based learning (CBL) is an established pedagogical active learning method used in various disciplines and defined based on the field of study and type of case. The utility of CBL for teaching specific aspects of cancer diagnosis to practising pathologists has not been previously studied in sub-Saharan Africa. Objectives: We aimed to pilot test standardised cancer cases on a group of practising pathologists in sub-Saharan Africa to evaluate case content, clarity of questions and delivery of content. Methods: Expert faculty created cases for the four most commonly diagnosed cancers. The format included mini-cases and bullet cases which were all open-ended. The questions dealt with interpretation of clinical information, gross specimen examination, morphologic characteristics of tumours, ancillary testing, reporting and appropriate communication to clinicians. Results: Cases on breast, cervical, prostate and colorectal cancers were tested on seven practising pathologists. Each case took an average of 45–90 min to complete. Questions that were particularly challenging to testers were on: •  Specimens they should have been but for some reason were not exposed to in routine practice. •  Ancillary testing and appropriate tumour staging. New knowledge gained included tumour grading and assessment of radial margins. Revisions to cases were made based on testers’ feedback, which included rewording of questions to reduce ambiguity and adding of tables to clarify concepts. Conclusion: Cases were created for CBL in Kenya, but these are applicable elsewhere in Africa and beyond to teach cancer diagnosis. The pilot testing of cases prepared faculty for the actual CBL course and feedback provided by the testers assisted in improving the questions and impact on day-to-day practice

Creation and pilot testing of cases for case-based learning: A pedagogical approach for pathology cancer diagnosis

Background: Case-based learning (CBL) is an established pedagogical active learning method used in various disciplines and defined based on the field of study and type of case. The utility of CBL for teaching specific aspects of cancer diagnosis to practising pathologists has not been previously studied in sub-Saharan Africa. Objectives: We aimed to pilot test standardised cancer cases on a group of practising pathologists in sub-Saharan Africa to evaluate case content, clarity of questions and delivery of content. Methods: Expert faculty created cases for the four most commonly diagnosed cancers. The format included mini-cases and bullet cases which were all open-ended. The questions dealt with interpretation of clinical information, gross specimen examination, morphologic characteristics of tumours, ancillary testing, reporting and appropriate communication to clinicians. Results: Cases on breast, cervical, prostate and colorectal cancers were tested on seven practising pathologists. Each case took an average of 45–90 min to complete. Questions that were particularly challenging to testers were on: Specimens they should have been but for some reason were not exposed to in routine practice.Ancillary testing and appropriate tumour staging. New knowledge gained included tumour grading and assessment of radial margins. Revisions to cases were made based on testers’ feedback, which included rewording of questions to reduce ambiguity and adding of tables to clarify concepts. Conclusion: Cases were created for CBL in Kenya, but these are applicable elsewhere in Africa and beyond to teach cancer diagnosis. The pilot testing of cases prepared faculty for the actual CBL course and feedback provided by the testers assisted in improving the questions and impact on day-to-day practice