Significance of E-lesions in Hodgkin lymphoma and the creation of a new consensus definition: a report from SEARCH.

The International Staging Evaluation and Response Criteria Harmonization for Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Hodgkin Lymphoma (SEARCH for CAYAHL) seeks to provide an appropriate, universal differentiation between E-lesions and stage IV extranodal disease in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). A literature search was performed through the PubMed and Google Scholar databases using the terms "Hodgkin disease," and "extranodal," "extralymphatic," "E lesions," "E stage," or "E disease." Publications were reviewed for the number of participants; median age and age range; diagnostic modalities used for staging; and the definition, incidence, and prognostic significance of E-lesions. Thirty-six articles describing 12 640 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most articles reported staging per the Ann Arbor (72%, 26/36) or Cotswolds modification of the Ann Arbor staging criteria (25%, 9/36), and articles rarely defined E-lesions or disambiguated "extranodal disease." The overall incidence of E-lesions for patients with stage I-III HL was 11.5% (1330/11 602 unique patients). Available stage-specific incidence analysis of 3888 patients showed a similar incidence of E-lesions in stage II (21.2%) and stage III (21.9%), with E-lesions rarely seen with stage I disease (1.1%). E-lesions likely remain predictive, but we cannot unequivocally conclude that identifying E-lesions in HL imparts prognostic value in the modern era of the more selective use of targeted radiation therapy. A harmonized E-lesion definition was reached based on the available evidence and the consensus of the SEARCH working group. We recommend that this definition of E-lesion be applied in future clinical trials with explicit reporting to confirm the prognostic value of E-lesions.

Accuracy and Thoroughness of Treatment Summaries Provided as Part of Survivorship Care Plans Prepared by Two Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Treatment summaries prepared as part of survivorship care planning should correctly and thoroughly report diagnosis and treatment information. METHODS: As part of a clinical trial, summaries were prepared for patients with stage 0 to III breast cancer at two cancer centers. Summaries were prepared per the standard of care at each center via two methods: using the electronic health record (EHR) to create and facilitate autopopulation of content or using manual data entry into an external software program to create the summary. Each participant's clinical data were abstracted and cross-checked against each summary. Errors were defined as inaccurate information, and omissions were defined as missing information on the basis of the Institute of Medicine recommended elements. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one summaries were reviewed: 80 EHR based versus 41 software based. Twenty-four EHR-based summaries (30%) versus six software-based summaries (15%) contained one or more omissions. Omissions included failure to provide dates and specify all axillary surgeries for EHR-based summaries and failure to specify receptors for software-based summaries. Eight EHR-based summaries (10%) versus 19 software-based summaries (46%) contained one or more errors. Errors in EHR-based summaries were mostly discrepancies in dates, and errors in software-based summaries included incorrect stage, surgeries, chemotherapy, and receptors. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of summaries contained at least one error or omission; some were potentially clinically significant. Mismatches between the clinical scenario and templates contributed to many of the errors and omissions. In an era of required care plan provision, quality measures should be considered and tracked to reduce rates, decrease inadvertent contributions from templates, and support audited data use.