An audit on completeness of reporting Whipple's specimens

Introduction
This Audit is focused on assessing the completeness of vital information in traditional reports of Whipple's procedure, using the Royal College of Pathologists data sets for pancreatic cancer reporting as the benchmark. We believe a standardized reporting system will take into account significant variables that may impact treatment quality.

Methodology
This is a descriptive cross sectional study. A hundred and forty-three Whipple's histopathological reports were examined and compared to The Royal College of Pathologists data set for reporting of carcinomas of pancreas, ampulla of Vater and common bile duct.

Results
The length of the reports varied markedly with the shortest report having 156 words and the longest report having 1095 words. The median word count was 385 words. The frequency of reporting the variables varied too. Type of tumour was documented in 100% of reports whereas variables such as nodal stage and superior mesenteric artery resection margin were reported in only 76.9% and 35% of reports respectively, both having direct implications on prognosis. Further the frequency of reporting of the background pathology was low as 24.5%.

Conclusions
Due to the descriptive nature of the traditional pathological reporting system, some of the significant variables can be missed while converting what is observed in to a report. This may impact adversely in planning adjuvant treatment and evaluation of prognosis after surgery.  Adherence to a standardized synoptic reporting system may help to overcome this drawback.