What is your count? An observational study of lymph node counting in 2,028 colorectal cancer resections.

BACKGROUND: Lymph 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. METHODS: Colorectal 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 RESULTS: The 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 (p<0.001) among pathologists; however, PLNC did not show this association (p = 0.2917). T-tests showed that mean LNC (p<0.001) and PLNC (p<0.035) differed between YS. 138 of 2,028 cases had less than the 12 LNC target. Logistic regression revealed a strong association between meeting the LNC target and pathologist (p<0.001) but TDpos was non-predictive (p = 0.4736). CONCLUSIONS: Positive 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.

Margin status of basal cell carcinoma: What can be done better?

PURPOSE: Guidelines on clinical margins for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) excisions were recently published, yet the ambiguity regarding the margin continues for surgeons and pathologists. The purpose of this study was to determine the incomplete excision rate of BCC, determine the factors associated with incomplete excision, and evaluate the completeness of reporting between surgeon and pathologist. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted on pathology reports from single excisions of BCC specimens between January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was the incomplete excision rate (positive margins) as reported by pathologist. Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between incomplete excision rate and anatomical location, pathologist, and surgeon. The completeness of surgeon pathology requisition forms was evaluated qualitatively. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-six pathology reports were included. The incomplete excision rate was 12% (n = 94). The most common site of incomplete excision was head and neck (n = 87, 15%), followed by trunk (n = 5, 7%), and extremities (n = 2, 2%). Five hundred and seventy-nine specimens from 6 surgeons and 9 pathologists were included in the logistic regression analysis. The Wald test showed that the location was significantly associated with incomplete excision (p < 0.05), whereas surgeon and pathologist reports were not (p > 0.05). Regarding missing information, only 47 (6%) pathology reports included "excision" in the requisition form. Four hundred and three (53%) specimens had no clinical history. CONCLUSIONS: The incomplete excision rate found in this study falls within the report range in the literature. Neither surgeon nor pathologist had significant association with incomplete excision. Incomplete excision rate of BCC may be inflated owing to the lack of standardization in requisition form and pathology reporting.