English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose Although information from pathology reports is essential to the care of individuals with cancer and to population-level cancer control, no systematic evidence exists regarding the adequacy of breast pathology reporting in Ethiopia. This study audited pathology reports of mastectomy specimens from patients evaluated at the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital Oncology Center in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Methods Mastectomy pathology reports from February 2014 through January 2016 were assessed for gross and microscopic information considered by the Breast Cancer Initiative 2.5 (BCI 2.5; formerly the Breast Health Global Initiative) guideline to be necessary for care of patients with breast cancer stratified according to basic, limited, and enhanced resource settings. Results Fewer than two thirds (61.6%) of the 417 reports we reviewed included all four of the BCI 2.5 basic pathology data elements we could evaluate with available data (tumor category, lymph node category, histologic type, and histologic grade). Only 1.0% of reports included all three pathology data elements recommended for limited resource settings (estrogen receptor status, margin status, and lymphovascular invasion). Several elements were significantly more likely to be noted in reports from nonpublic hospitals than from public hospitals. Although only three of 417 reports included checklists or templates, all three of these reports included all of the basic pathology information, and they all included at least two of the three limited pathology elements not already on the basic list. Conclusion More than one third (38.4%) of mastectomy pathology reports did not meet BCI 2.5 standards for basic resource settings. Quality measurement and improvement programs and capacity-building interventions by national pathology and oncology organizations, collaboration with medical and public health organizations in neighboring countries, adoption of synoptic reporting templates, use of electronic pathology reporting, and histotechnology and histopathology training collaborations with laboratories in high-resource regions are recommended.

Adequacy of Pathologic Reports of Invasive Breast Cancer From Mastectomy Specimens at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital Oncology Center in Ethiopia