Trends in Accuracy and Comprehensiveness of Pathology Reports for Resected NSCLC in a High Mortality Area of the United States

Introduction: Complete and accurate pathology reports are vital to postoperative prognostication and management. We evaluated the impact of three interventions across a diverse group of hospitals on pathology reports of postresection NSCLC. Methods: We evaluated pathology reports for patients who underwent curative-intent surgical resection for NSCLC, at 11 institutions within four contiguous Dartmouth Hospital Referral Regions in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee from 2004 to 2020, for completeness and accuracy, before and after the following three quality improvement interventions: education (feedback to heighten awareness); synoptic reporting; and a lymph node specimen collection kit. We compared the proportion of pathology reports with the six most important items for postoperative management (specimen type, tumor size, histologic type, pathologic [p] T-category, pN-category, margin status) across the following six patient cohorts: preintervention control, postintervention with four different combinations of interventions, and a contemporaneous nonintervention external control. Results: In the postintervention era, the odds of reporting all key items were eight times higher than those in the preintervention era (OR = 8.3, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 6.7–10.2, p \u3c 0.0001). There were sixfold and eightfold increases in the odds of accurate pT- and pN-category reporting in the postintervention era compared with the preintervention era (pT OR = 5.7, 95 % CI: 4.7–6.9; pN OR = 8.0, 95 % CI: 6.5–10.0, both p \u3c 0.0001). Within the intervention groups, the odds of reporting all six key items, accurate pT category, and accurate pN-category were highest in patients who received all three interventions. Conclusions: Gaps in the quality of NSCLC pathologic reportage can be identified, quantified, and corrected by rationally designed interventions

Joint SOGC-CCMG Opinion for Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: An Update for All Canadian Providers of Maternity and Reproductive Healthcare in the Era of Direct-to-Consumer Testing

This guideline was written to update Canadian maternity care and reproductive healthcare providers on pre- and postconceptional reproductive carrier screening for women or couples who may be at risk of being carriers for autosomal recessive (AR), autosomal dominant (AD), or X-linked (XL) conditions, with risk of transmission to the fetus. Four previous SOGC- Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) guidelines are updated and merged into the current document. All maternity care (most responsible health provider [MRHP]) and paediatric providers; maternity nursing; nurse practitioner; provincial maternity care administrator; medical student; and postgraduate resident year 1-7. Fertile, sexually active females and their fertile, sexually active male partners who are either planning a pregnancy or are pregnant (preferably in the first trimester of pregnancy, but any gestational age is acceptable). Women and their partners will be able to obtain appropriate genetic carrier screening information and possible diagnosis of AR, AD, or XL disorders (preferably pre-conception), thereby allowing an informed choice regarding genetic carrier screening and reproductive options (e.g., prenatal diagnosis, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, egg or sperm donation, or adoption). Informed reproductive decisions related to genetic carrier screening and reproductive outcomes based on family history, ethnic background, past obstetrical history, known carrier status, or genetic diagnosis. SOGC REPRODUCTIVE CARRIER SCREENING SUMMARY STATEMENT (2016): Pre-conception or prenatal education and counselling for reproductive carrier screening requires a discussion about testing within the three perinatal genetic carrier screening/diagnosis time periods, which include pre-conception, prenatal, and neonatal for conditions currently being screened for and diagnosed. This new information should be added to the standard reproductive carrier screening protocols that are already being utilized by the most responsible maternity provider through the informed consent process with the patient. (III-A; GRADE low/moderate) SOGC OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS QUALITY AND GRADE: There was a strong observational/expert opinion (quality and grade) for the genetic carrier literature with randomized controlled trial evidence being available only for the invasive testing. Both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care quality and classification and the GRADE evidence quality and grade are provided. MEDLINE; PubMed; government neonatal screening websites; key words/common reproductive genetic carrier screened diseases/previous SOGC Guidelines/medical academic societies (Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine [SMFM]; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG]; CCMG; Royal College Obstetrics and Gynaecology [RCOG] [UK]; American Society of Human Genetics [ASHG]; International Society of Prenatal Diagnosis [ISPD])/provincial neonatal screening policies and programs; search terms (carrier screening, prenatal screening, neonatal genetic/metabolic screening, cystic fibrosis (CF), thalassemia, hemoglobinopathy, hemophilia, Fragile X syndrome (FXS), spinal muscular atrophy, Ashkenazi Jewish carrier screening, genetic carrier screening protocols, AR, AD, XL). 10 years (June 2005-September 2015); initial search dates June 30, 2015 and September 15, 2015; completed final search January 4, 2016. Validation of articles was completed by primary authors RD Wilson and I De Bie. Benefits are to provide an evidenced based reproductive genetic carrier screening update consensus based on international opinions and publications for the use of Canadian women, who are planning a pregnancy or who are pregnant and have been identified to be at risk (personal or male partner family or reproductive history) for the transmission of a clinically significant genetic condition to their offspring with associated morbidity and/or mortality. Harm may arise from having counselling and informed testing of the carrier status of the mother, their partner, or their fetus, as well as from declining to have this counselling and informed testing or from not having the opportunity for counselling and informed testing. Costs will ensue both from the provision of opportunities for counselling and testing, as well as when no such opportunities are offered or are declined and the birth of a child with a significant inherited condition and resulting morbidity/mortality occurs; these comprise not only the health care costs to the system but also the social/financial/psychological/emotional costs to the family. These recommendations are based on expert opinion and have not been subjected to a health economics assessment and local or provincial implementation will be required. This guideline is an update of four previous joint SOGC-CCMG Genetic Screening Guidelines dated 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2008 developed by the SOGC Genetic Committee in collaboration with the CCMG Prenatal Diagnosis Committee (now Clinical Practice Committee). 2016 CARRIER SCREENING RECOMMENDATION

Two Interventions on Pathologic Nodal Staging in a Population-Based Lung Cancer Resection Cohort

Background: Despite its prognostic importance, poor pathologic nodal staging of lung cancer prevails. We evaluated the impact of 2 interventions to improve pathologic nodal staging. Methods: We implemented a lymph node specimen collection kit to improve intraoperative lymph node collection (surgical intervention) and a novel gross dissection method for intrapulmonary node retrieval (pathology intervention) in nonrandomized stepped-wedge fashion, involving 12 hospitals and 7 pathology groups. We used standard statistical methods to compare surgical quality and survival of patients who had neither intervention (group 1), pathology intervention only (group 2), surgical intervention only (group 3), and both interventions (group 4). Results: Of 4019 patients from 2009 to 2021, 50%, 5%, 21%, and 24%, respectively, were in groups 1 to 4. Rates of nonexamination of lymph nodes were 11%, 9%, 0%, and 0% and rates of nonexamination of mediastinal lymph nodes were 29%, 35%, 2%, and 2%, respectively, in groups 1 to 4 (P \u3c .0001). Rates of attainment of American College of Surgeons Operative Standard 5.8 were 22%, 29%, 72%, and 85%; and rates of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer complete resection were 14%, 21%, 53%, and 61% (P \u3c .0001). Compared with group 1, adjusted hazard ratios for death were as follows: group 2, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.15); group 3, 0.91 (0.78-1.03); and group 4, 0.75 (0.64-0.87). Compared with group 2, group 4 adjusted hazard ratio was 0.72 (0.57-0.91); compared with group 3, it was 0.83 (0.69-0.99). These relationships remained after exclusion of wedge resections. Conclusions: Combining a lymph node collection kit with a novel gross dissection method significantly improved pathologic nodal evaluation and survival