Upload
lamtruc
View
221
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Quality assurance Guidelines for Breast PatholoGy services
Second edition
NHSBSP Publication No 2July 2011
EditorProfessor Ian EllisProfessor of Cancer Pathology, University of Nottingham, School of Molecular Medical Sciences; Department of Histopathology, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG7 2UH
Tel: 0115 969 1169 ext 56875
Fax: 0115 962 7768
Email: [email protected]
Editorial committee members
national Quality assurance coordinating Group for Breast screening Pathology
Dr Ruth Adamson Dr Fiona Knox Dr Cecily Quinn
Dr Neil Anderson Ms Sandhya Kodikara Dr David Rowlands
Dr Yoon Chia Dr Andrew Lee Dr Salam al-Sam
Dr Derek Coleman Dr Tong Fang Lioe Dr Jyotsna Shrimankar
Dr Charles Connolly Dr Elizabeth Mallon Mr Mark Sibbering
Dr Nick Dallimore Dr Sue Moss Dr Tim Stephenson
Professor Ian Ellis Dr Ruth Nash Professor Rosemary Walker
Dr Anne Girling Dr David Parham Dr Clive Wells
Dr Sally Ann Hales Dr Neera Patel Dr Robin Wilson
Professor Andrew Hanby Professor Julietta Patnick Mr Richard Winder
Mr Kieran Horgan Professor Sarah Pinder
Writing Group of the national Quality assurance coordinating Group for Breast screening Pathology
Published byNHS Cancer Screening ProgrammesFulwood HouseOld Fulwood RoadSheffieldS10 3TH
Tel: 0114 271 1060Fax: 0114 271 1089
Email: [email protected]: www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk
© NHS Cancer Screening Programmes 2011
ISBN 978-1-84463-072-1
The contents of this document may be copied for use by staff working in the public sector but may not be copied for any other purpose without prior permission from NHS Cancer Screening Programmes.The document is available in PDF format on the NHS Cancer Screening Programmes website.
Typeset by Prepress Projects Ltd, Perth (www.prepress-projects.co.uk)Printed by Duffield Printers
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | iii
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PATHOLOGICAL REPORTING OF BREAST SPECIMENS 2
2.1 Standardisation of terminology and diagnostic criteria 22.2 Key issues relating to the quality of service provision 2
3. QUALITy ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES FOR BREAST SCREENING PATHOLOGy 5
3.1 Outcome objectives 5
4. ACHIEVING THE PATHOLOGy QUALITy ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES 8
4.1 National delivery of breast pathology quality 84.2 External quality assessment 94.3 Education and training 94.4 Information technology 114.5 Research and development 124.6 Regional delivery of breast pathology quality 124.7 Local delivery of breast pathology quality 134.8 Resource implications 15
REFERENCES 17
APPENDIX 1: FORMS 18
APPENDIX 2: BREAST HISTOPATHOLOGy – EXAMPLE SyNOPTIC REPORT 25
APPENDIX 3: EXTERNAL QUALITy ASSESSMENT SCHEME IN BREAST SCREENING PATHOLOGy 28
APPENDIX 4: SPECIFICATION FOR A REGIONAL COORDINATOR IN BREAST SCREENING PATHOLOGy 31
APPENDIX 5: TEMPLATE PATHOLOGy QUALITy ASSURANCE VISIT QUESTIONNAIRE 33
APPENDIX 6: ROyAL COLLEGE OF PATHOLOGISTS: WORKLOAD COMPLEXITy FOR BREAST PATHOLOGy 40
NHSBSP July 2011
iv | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe editorial committee is grateful to the following for their contributions to the Guidelines
• the Information Group of the National Quality Assurance Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology, for the data forms at Appendix 1
• the East Midlands Quality Assurance Reference centre, for the Pathology Quality Assurance Visit Questionnaire at Appendix 5.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 1
1. INTRODUCTIONThe quality of pathology services is central to the delivery of high-quality breast screening services, because the definitive diagnosis of cancer and its subsequent classification are in most cases determined by pathologists. They are required not only to distinguish cancer from benign condi-tions but also to report histological features of prognostic significance, thus helping to ensure that patients are treated appropriately. The prognostic features of screen-detected cancers should be more favourable than those of symptomatic cancers. However the full significance of these patho-logical characteristics can be recognised only if they are reported consistently by all pathologists.
Consistency would be optimised if these guidelines were adopted not only by pathologists working in breast screening programmes but also by those in symptomatic breast services, as pathology data are a key element in the effective monitoring of both areas. Although the success of a breast screening programme is ultimately measured by a reduction in mortality in the invited population, statistically significant mortality data do not become available for many years. Other methods are therefore used to monitor the effectiveness of programmes over the medium term: they include the number of tumours detected, their size and their prognostic features.
In addition to their role in monitoring the breast screening programme and supporting patients and their treatment, pathology data contribute to surgical, radiological and pathological audit, future pathology review, cancer standards audit, and clinical research. The quality of these data depends on the expertise of pathologists and the techniques and reporting methods they employ. Within the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), specimens from screened women may make more demands on this expertise than those from symptomatic women, on both macroscopic and histological examination. In particular, impalpable lesions often require specimen radiography, making the process of examining and reporting a biopsy specimen more than usually complex.
To generate high-quality pathological data and achieve the standards required by the NHSBSP, pathologists need to be able to draw on appropriate managerial and administrative support and rely on robust quality assurance (QA) processes. The pathology QA process is led and coordinated by the UK National Coordinating Committee for Breast Pathology (NCCBP) on behalf of the NHSBSP and the Royal College of Pathologists. It is part of the larger QA programme involving all professional groups working in the NHSBSP. The QA process for breast pathology operates and is managed on a regional basis, and is coordinated by the NCCBP.
NHSBSP July 2011
2 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
2. PATHOLOGICAL REPORTING OF BREAST SPECIMENS
2.1 Standardisation of terminology and diagnostic criteria
A key objective of the QA programme is to unify the terminology and diagnostic criteria employed in reporting breast lesions. Central to this are the revised reporting forms for histopathology, needle core biopsy and cytopathology that are used to enter pathological data on the national breast screening system (NBSS). (See Appendix 1.) By ensuring consistent reporting of features and consistent terminology these forms enable a standard set of data to be collected from each woman. The forms are not designed to replace existing reporting procedures in individual laboratories but could do so if desired. It is recommended that they are completed at the time the specimen is reported; in cases where a second opinion is sought their completion should be delayed until the definitive diagnosis is reached. To minimise variation in diagnostic criteria, definitions of terms and more detailed guidance on using the forms are set out in the NHSBSP/Royal College of Pathologists publication Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease (NHSBSP Publication No 58)1 and Guidelines for Non-operative Diagnostic Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening (NHSBSP Publication No 50).2
Use of synoptic reports that include the RCPath minimum dataset and NHSBSP pathology datasets is strongly encouraged. This ensures comprehensive and consistent provision of pathology data and eases their transfer to NHSBSP, cancer registry and audit datasets. A sample synoptic report is provided at Appendix 2.
2.2 Key issues relating to the quality of service provision
2.2.1 Macroscopic examination of specimens
Macroscopic examination is a vital part of the screening process. It should be undertaken only by experienced pathologists, trained biomedical scientists (BMSs) or trainee pathologists under consultant supervision. Detailed guidance on the macroscopic examination of diagnostic and therapeutic biopsies, including wide local excision samples, mastectomy samples and lymph node specimens, can be found in Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease (NHSBSP Publication No 58).1
2.2.2 Access to specimen radiography facilities
It is mandatory for the surgeon to arrange immediate specimen radiography of biopsies containing impalpable lesions, to confirm that they include the radiological abnormality. Additional specimen radiography of the sliced sample may help to ensure that the correct blocks of tissue are selected for examination. Histological reporting of impalpable lesions can be undertaken only if facilities for specimen radiography are available.
Specimen radiography may take place in the radiology department, the operating theatre complex or the pathology laboratory. Histopathologists reporting these samples should have ready access to specimen x-ray facilities or services. If these are located in the pathology laboratory, a radiation
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 3
protection officer or medical physics QA scheme should be in place to monitor safety and perfor-mance. In addition, high-intensity viewing boxes are needed for examining mammographic films; and where films have been replaced by digital x-ray, facilities should be available to permit timely examination of the digital images. Written laboratory protocols should be in place for examining breast specimens and for using and monitoring the associated equipment.
2.2.3 Histological examination
Audits of national external quality assessment (EQA) performance and non-operative diagnosis performance statistics have identified variations in practice relating to diagnosis and classification of some breast lesions. Pathologists are required to be familiar, and practise in accordance, with the NHSBSP and RCPath guidelines on reporting breast specimens.1,2
2.2.4 Identifying atypical proliferative lesions
Some non-cancerous atypical proliferative lesions are associated with an increased risk of develop-ing carcinoma3 and it is important to identify them accurately and reproducibly. Appropriate patient management can then be instituted and more learned about their biological potential. Pathologists must be familiar with current classification methods for these lesions1,2 and seek a second opinion in cases where doubt remains.
2.2.5 Recording features of prognostic and predictive significance
Recording histological features of invasive carcinomas that are of prognostic and predictive sig-nificance (ie tumour size, grade, vascular invasion, tumour type) will affect the patient’s immediate management. It will also allow comparison of cancers detected by screening and those presenting symptomatically – either as interval cancers or in unscreened women. The number of positive and negative lymph nodes and the total number of lymph nodes received should also be recorded. Effective clinical follow-up will enable clinicians and pathologists to correlate the pathological features of tumours with clinical outcomes.
2.2.6 Frozen section examination of impalpable lesions
Frozen section examination has now largely been displaced by more effective non-operative diagnosis techniques. However frozen section examination of palpable lesions may be justified in those rare cases where a definitive diagnosis cannot be made preoperatively. Only in exceptional circumstances should frozen sections be undertaken on impalpable lesions, and then only after consultation between the pathologist and surgeon.
2.2.7 Non-operative diagnosis
Guidance on the principles and practical aspects of needle core biopsy and fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is provided in Guidelines for Non-operative Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening (NHSBSP Publication No 50).2
NHSBSP July 2011
4 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
If needle biopsy or cytology investigations are negative in the face of clinical and radiological evi-dence of malignancy then they should be repeated; if they are still negative, an open biopsy should be performed. It is possible to achieve definitive diagnosis of benign lesions. Current evidence indicates that the use of non-operative diagnosis substantially reduces the number of unnecessary operations performed both for benign disease and for malignancy, with reduced discomfort and inconvenience to the patient.2 Definitive surgery for carcinoma can be planned preoperatively using the triple approach of radiological imaging, clinical examination and needle biopsy (or FNAC). This permits treatment for many malignant lesions in a one-stage operation.
2.2.8 Non-operative specimens
All needle core biopsy and FNAC specimens should be reported by a named NHSBSP breast screening consultant pathologist or a trainee pathologist under consultant supervision.
2.2.9 Operator skills
The detection of carcinoma by cytology or needle biopsy depends on the ability of the pathologist to identify malignancy; but it depends also on the operator’s skill in localising the lesion with the needle, obtaining an adequate sample and, in the case of cytology, making a satisfactory prepara-tion. Failure to detect carcinoma by needle techniques often reflects inadequate sampling of the target lesion or poor preparation of FNAC samples. Guidance on the practical aspects of biopsy or aspiration, including image-guided specimens, can be found in the Guidelines for Non-operative Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening.2
2.2.10 Training for clinical staff performing fine needle aspiration
Where non-operative diagnostic sampling is performed by staff with limited experience and poor training, this can lead to a higher proportion of unsatisfactory and false negative specimens.2 All clinical staff using these techniques should therefore receive adequate training in localising and sampling lesions and making satisfactory preparations.
2.2.11 Technical quality of specimen preparation
Accurate histological and cytological diagnosis relies on high-quality samples. At present, conven-tional methods for preparing slides are adequate for diagnosing most breast diseases, although immunohistology is required in a small number of cases. Although there are minor differences in processing and staining methods from laboratory to laboratory, these do not significantly alter pathological interpretation. Whatever their methods and slide quality, all laboratories involved in breast cancer screening should participate in the national immunocytochemistry EQA scheme and also in general histology technical schemes. For laboratories providing therapeutic predictive testing of patient samples, such as hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) assays, participation in a recognised EQA scheme is essential.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 5
3. QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES FOR BREAST SCREENING PATHOLOGY
3.1 Outcome objectives
The four QA objectives for breast screening pathology in the NHSBSP are listed below. (Similar objectives can be applied to symptomatic breast pathology.)
1. to improve the identification and pathological characterisation of lesions producing mam-mographic abnormalities
2. to improve the consistency of diagnoses made by pathologists3. to improve the quality of prognostic and predictive information in pathological reports4. to minimise the number of unnecessary surgical operations.
The outcome measurements, performance standards and means of achieving these objectives are presented in more detail in Table 1. These align with the outcome measures for other professional disciplines.4
Table 1 Outcome measurements, performance standards and outline methods of achieving objectives
Qa objectivesoutcome measurements standards
outline methods of achieving objectives
1. To improve the identification and pathological characterisation of lesions producing mammographic abnormalities
Proportion of specimens containing the mammographic abnormality in which it is not identified histopathologically
< 1% (i) High-quality specimen radiography for impalpable lesions
(ii) Adequate macroscopic examination and sampling of biopsy specimens
(iii) High-quality tissue fixation and section preparation
(iv) Participation in technical EQA schemes
(v) Prospective multidisciplinary meetings to correlate radiological and pathological findings
2. To improve the consistency of diagnoses made by pathologists
Diagnostic consistency measured in the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme:
(i) Use of the standardised terminology and diagnostic criteria
(a) For invasive carcinoma
(a) Minimal k = 0.8Achievable k = 0.9
(ii) High-quality tissue fixation and section preparation
(b) For ductal carcinoma in situ (including microinvasive carcinoma)
(b) Minimal k = 0.7Achievable k = 0.8
(iii) Participation in technical EQA schemes
NHSBSP July 2011
6 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
Qa objectivesoutcome measurements standards
outline methods of achieving objectives
(c) For benign lesions (excluding atypical ductal hyperplasia)
(c) Minimal k = 0.8Achievable k = 0.9
(iv) Continuing medical education in breast pathology
(v) Participation in the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme
(vi) Referral of difficult cases for second opinion
(vii) Research and development work on borderline lesions
(viii) Procedures in place for timely transport and receipt of specimens
3. To improve the quality of prognostic information in pathological reports
(i) Procedures in place for timely transport and receipt of specimens and for tissue fixation
(ii) Participation in technical EQA schemes
(a) Ensure high-quality tissue fixation and section preparation
(a) Minimal > 95%Achievable > 99% (except in inappropriate specimens)a
(a-i) Application of grading and size measurement criteriab
(b) Proportion of invasive carcinomas graded and measured
(b) Minimal k = 0.5Achievable k = 0.7
(b-i) Following grading criteriab
(b-ii) Research and development on grading methods which provide improved consistency
(c) Consistency of grading in national EQA scheme
(c) Minimal > 88% of measurements within 3 mm of the median valueAchievable > 90% of measurements within 3 mm of the median value
(c-i) Following guidance on measuring tumour sizeb
(d) Consistency of tumour measurement in national EQA scheme
(d) Minimal > 95%Achievable > 99% (except in inappropriate specimens)a
(d-i) Appropriate preservation and preparation of tissue(d-ii) Following receptor assessment methodologyb
(e) Proportion of invasive cancer cases assessed for hormone HER-2 receptor status
(e) Availability of EQA scheme results and prompt remedial action following identification of substandard performance
(f) Consistency of satisfactory performance in receptor EQA schemes
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 7
Qa objectivesoutcome measurements standards
outline methods of achieving objectives
4. To minimise the number of unnecessary surgical operationsc
(a) Benign biopsy rate (a) See radiology standards4
(a) Monitoring performance using the biopsy QA and cytology QA systems and addressing deficiencies
(b) Unsatisfactory samples from cancer-bearing breasts and core biopsy miss rate (B1 + B2) from cancer-bearing breasts
(b) For needle core biopsyMinimal < 15%Achievable < 10%
For cytologyMinimal < 10%Achievable < 5%
(b) Ensuring that clinical staff are able to obtain satisfactory samples and check the quality of the preparations
(c) False positive rated (c) For needle core biopsyMinimal < 0.5%Achievable < 0.1%
For cytologyMinimal < 1%Achievable < 0.5%
(c-i) Produce guidelines on reporting non-operative diagnosis specimens(c-ii) Run national educational courses on non-operative diagnosis specimen interpretation(c-iii) Development of EQA scheme for needle core biopsy using telepathology
(d) False negative rated (d) For needle core biopsy, use miss rate (b) above
For cytologyMinimal < 5%Achievable < 4%
(d) Provide guidance in breast needle core biopsy and FNAC technique
aInappropriate specimens include needle biopsies, carcinomas less than 10 high-power fields in size, post neoadjuvant treatment specimens and cases where section quality or tissue preservation is too poor to assess the relevant histological characteristics.
bFor these, see Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease.1
cAchieving the standards depends not only on the performance of the pathologist but also upon the clinicians undertaking the aspirations or needle biopsy sampling procedures.
dFor definitions see Guidelines for Non-operative Diagnostic Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening.2
NHSBSP July 2011
8 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
4. ACHIEVING THE PATHOLOGY QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
4.1 National delivery of breast pathology quality
The NCCBP is responsible for coordinating QA procedures and guidance.
The group meets twice yearly to consider developments which impact on the practice of breast pathology. It comprises all the pathology regional coordinators of the NHSBSP; the Director of NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; the Royal College of Pathologists’ Specialty Advisor in Breast Pathology (a role usually taken by the chair of the committee); and co-opted pathologists with specialist expertise in breast pathology. Information on current membership and contact details can be found on the NCCBP website (http://www.nccbp.com/).
The NCCBP’s terms of reference are to
• recommend minimum acceptable standards and provide guidelines and advice on pathological examination of breast tissues, in order to maximise detection of malignancy and achieve a high level of accuracy and consistency in reporting breast lesions
• consider ways of achieving these objectives and to identify resource implications• advise the NHSBSP, the Royal College of Pathologists and other medical organisations on
breast pathology-related issues• provide support and information for regional pathology coordinators• identify the educational needs of pathologists and organise training, including national courses• monitor the adequacy of data provided by pathologists• ensure that issues relating to quality and standards receive timely attention• keep the pathology information system under continual review• act as the steering committee for the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme• monitor the performance of non-operative diagnostic services• enable the exchange of information and discussion of quality issues with other professional
groups• facilitate the exchange of information between pathologists and cancer registries, particularly
to improve the recording of information on interval cancers• facilitate the exchange of information and pathological material between pathologists and the
wider research community.
In addition to acting as the steering committee for the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme, the group has four small subgroups covering the following quality assurance responsibilities
• education and training• information and technology• non-operative diagnosis• research and development.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 9
4.2 External quality assessment
4.2.1 National EQA scheme
Participation in the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme is mandatory for consultant pathologists who provide a breast screening pathology service, and recommended for all consult-ant pathologists who report breast specimens. The EQA scheme has achieved clinical pathology accreditation (CPA) and includes personal performance appraisal. Outline details of the scheme are provided in Appendix 3; fuller details, including the scheme’s standard operating procedures (SOPs), can be accessed via the NCCBP website (http://www.nccbp.com/) or the Royal College of Pathologists’ EQA pages (http://www.rcpath.org/).
New members of the scheme can register and obtain their unique EQA identification number through their regional QA reference centre (QARC). They should also register separately on the NCCBP website, to which EQA scheme returns may be submitted electronically.
4.2.2 Quality assessment for non-operative diagnosis
The NBSS is able to generate QA statistical reports automatically from screening and histology data. The non-operative diagnosis subgroup of the NCCBP recommends that, for the present, non-operative EQA in breast screening be performed using the NBSS cytology quality assurance (CQA) routine and biopsy quality assurance (BQA) routine. [For details see Guidelines for Non-operative Diagnostic Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening (NHSBSP Publication No 50)2].These reports give measures of sensitivity and specificity for the tests and permit detailed examination of the results, allowing the performance of a unit to be assessed.
It is recommended that, wherever possible, the software supporting the CQA and BQA routines on NBSS be loaded also on to computer systems dealing with symptomatic breast disease, as this will contribute to the standardisation of pathological reporting.
In future, telepathology systems are expected to be able to overcome the difficulties associated with cytology and needle core EQA, such as limited availability of the sample, allowing this area to be explored further.
4.3 Education and training
4.3.1 Training requirements
Consultants taking on breast screening responsibilities for the first time should attend a recognised NHSBSP multidisciplinary training course. One of the main functions of the basic NHSBSP course is to describe the multidisciplinary approach to breast screening.
Pathologists who have already attended the multidisciplinary course are advised to keep up to date and participate in the Royal College of Pathologists’ continuing professional development (CPD) scheme. CPD activity should include regular, relevant, breast pathology-associated content. Update and refresher courses are provided by the national breast screening training centres and
NHSBSP July 2011
10 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
other professional organisations to support ongoing breast pathology education. Courses offered by the national training centres cover pathology practice in more detail, including methods for examining specimens from screened women and specific diagnostic problems. A national breast pathology update course takes place every two years in the spring, alternately concentrating on non-operative diagnosis and breast histology. It is currently held at the Nottingham Breast Institute on behalf of the national breast screening training centres. All of these courses form part of the continuing medical education (CME) recommended by the Royal College of Pathologists. Where more individual tuition is needed, secondments to training centres can be arranged through regional pathology coordinators.
4.3.2 Participation in EQA
Participation in the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme is mandatory for pathologists working in the NHSBSP. Three educational cases are included in the EQA scheme, with a view to encouraging the development of further expertise. (See 4.3.5 below.)
4.3.3 Participation in regional QA meetings
It is an NHSBSP requirement that at least one pathologist representative from each screening unit or pathology department attends the regional pathology QA meetings. All pathologists participating in the provision of breast screening services should attend at least one meeting every 18 months, and preferably one each year.
4.3.4 Second opinions
Seeking second opinions on difficult cases is a useful educational exercise and recognised as good practice.
4.3.5 Educational role of regional pathology coordinators
Regional pathology coordinators should play a key role in facilitating education and training within regions for all pathologists dealing with breast specimens. They should hold regular regional breast screening pathology meetings, which may contain a slide seminar component. The discussion of slides circulated in the national EQA scheme together with the analyses of consistency (produced by the Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit) are regarded as an indispensable educational activity.
4.3.6 Service level agreements
Attendance at basic training courses and CME in aspects of breast pathology is mandatory in NHSBSP contractual agreements.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 11
4.4 Information technology
4.4.1 Information subgroup
The function of the information technology (IT) subgroup is to address the problems in gathering reliable and internally consistent histological and cytological data in the NHSBSP. The subgroup also has a function in determining the structure of the NBSS and is involved with major updates to this. It also processes change requests to the system. There is cross-representation with the NBSS Programme Board and the group meets as necessary to discuss changes of importance to the computer system as these impinge upon pathology data collection.
4.4.2 NBSS computer system
The NBSS computer system is in use in all breast screening offices in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
4.4.3 Histology and cytology proformas
In order to gather relevant pathological information, proformas have been approved by the NCCBP to cover both needle core biopsy and cytological data (see Appendix 1). These have been con-tinually modified during the course of the NHSBSP in an attempt to improve both the quality of the information and its ease of entry. Quality assurance evaluation of these data from individual screening centres can be achieved as well as allowing regional and national evaluation. Such information is capable of many substratifications, but requires careful appraisal before statistically valid conclusions can be drawn.
4.4.4 Other functions of the information subgroup
Ancillary functions undertaken by the information subgroup have been the preparation of a guide for the use and benefits of different specimen radiographic machines and ancillary apparatus, input to the non-operative diagnosis group in devising a QA system, and general advice to the NCCBP. Software modifications recommended by the NCCBP are also processed through the information group.
4.4.5 Interactions with other subgroups
There are overlaps with other pathology subgroups, notably research and development. In addi-tion, the functions of the information group potentially affect activities in the training and education quarter. Cross-representation and membership of these other subgroups harmonises these different activities.
NHSBSP July 2011
12 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
4.5 Research and development
4.5.1 Importance of research
Research is a vital component of pathology in breast cancer screening, which provides excellent opportunities to study the early stages of human breast cancer. Applied research that aims to refine diagnostic criteria is fundamental to improving the consistency of reporting. Better ways of evaluating the significance of borderline lesions and the features of established neoplasms will help to ensure that patients are managed appropriately. More research is also needed to improve understanding of the basic biology of the lesions found in clinical practice and breast screening and to support clinical pathologists in the more effective evaluation of breast biopsies.
4.5.2 Contributing to the research effort
All pathologists can make a contribution to research, whether or not they have specific research programmes. Vital to this contribution is effective cooperation between research groups and those delivering the clinical service. Local and national trials depend on access to reliable and adequate pathological data, and regional pathology coordinators should play a major role in facilitating research within their regions. Established researchers need ready access to ethically acquired pathological material derived from breast lesions in screened women. Use of tissue and associated data for research purposes should conform to national standards and regulatory requirements laid down by the Human Tissue Authority. These requirements, which cover consent, research ethics approval, storage and data protection, can be found on the Authority’s website (http://www.hta.gov.uk/).
4.6 Regional delivery of breast pathology quality
4.6.1 Regional QA network
The QA process is operated and managed on a regional network basis. It is coordinated by regional QARCs with regionally appointed coordinators in each professional discipline.
4.6.2 Role of the regional pathology coordinators
Regional pathology coordinators play a key role in facilitating the QA process and are integral members of the regional QA teams. They also support education and training initiatives, for example by holding regular regional breast screening pathology meetings with managerial and educational components. A specimen service level agreement for a regional coordinator in breast screening pathology appears at Appendix 4.
4.6.3 Regional QA visits
Pathology departments involved in the screening programme are visited regularly by regional QA teams who inspect local facilities and ensure that performance meets agreed standards. This process is detailed in Guidelines on Quality Assurance Visits (NHSBSP Publication No 40).5 Visits normally occur at least once in the agreement period (usually once every three years). Their
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 13
outcomes are currently reported to the regional breast screening QA committee, the host trust, the national coordinating team and (pending restructuring) the commissioning primary care trust (PCT). Appropriate action is taken where performance is assessed as inadequate. A template for a pathology QA visit questionnaire is provided at Appendix 5.
4.7 Local delivery of breast pathology quality
4.7.1 Breast pathology lead
Laboratories involved in diagnosing screen-detected breast disease (and also those diagnosing symptomatic disease) should be accredited by CPA UK Ltd. Each laboratory is required to have a nominated lead pathologist with responsibility for breast pathology. This pathologist and other pathologists supporting provision of the service are regarded as members of the multidisciplinary breast screening team. They have a responsibility to comply with QA guidance and take part in regular case management meetings. They should also participate in the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme and ensure the timely provision of all data required by the NHSBSP.
4.7.2 Requirements for breast screening pathologists
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of a specialist breast pathologist. However the recommended minimum standards for all pathologists providing a service to the NHSBSP are that the pathologist should
• attend an appropriate multidisciplinary training course prior to taking up post• participate in relevant CPD for each CPD round (the recommendation is at least 8 hours)• participate in the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme• participate in relevant and regular audit• regularly attend regional QA and specialist meetings• be a member of a specialist breast service multidisciplinary team and participate regularly in
clinical multidisciplinary team meetings• ensure multidisciplinary case discussion meetings are attended by at least one pathologist of
consultant level• be registered as a provider of breast pathology services for the purposes of National Cancer
Peer Review (NCPR)• participate in NHSBSP QA visits.
(To optimise consistency, the NCCBP recommend that these standards are also adopted by pathologists in the specialist breast symptomatic service and that similar standards be used for specialist breast pathology services in the private sector.)
4.7.3 Provision of breast pathology services
Pathologists should have ready access to specimen radiography facilities and adequate technical and secretarial support.
Laboratory procedures (SOPs) for handling and reporting breast specimens should be well documented.
NHSBSP July 2011
14 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
Pathologists should provide a non-operative diagnosis service that meets the quality standards laid down in Guidelines for Non-operative Diagnostic Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening.2 All histological and cytological specimens should be reported by a consultant pathologist or a trainee under consultant supervision. Meeting pathology turnaround times is critical if current cancer service standards are to be achieved.
Effective liaison between pathology laboratories and cancer registries benefits all parties. Data on interval cancers and cancers in unscreened women are essential for monitoring the screening programme. The use of synoptic reporting can facilitate the transfer of data to registries.
4.7.4 Audit and multidisciplinary discussion
Audit and multidisciplinary discussion are mandatory. Where effective, they can enable problems in preoperative tissue diagnosis and overall performance to be identified and addressed.
4.7.5 Attendance at multidisciplinary meetings
Attendance at routine multidisciplinary case management meetings by one or more of the patholo-gists providing a service to the breast unit is mandatory.
4.7.6 Service agreements for breast pathology
Pending restructuring, PCTs retain their role in promoting the quality of pathology services by embedding quality standards in agreements with hospitals. Achieving these standards has been eased by the formation of breast cancer units dealing with a minimum number of cases per annum and the development of related cancer services.
4.7.7 Workload
A recommendation has been made by the NCCBP that a minimum workload be set for breast pathologists. The minimum workload for a breast surgeon in the UK is 50 breast cancer cases per year. EU guidance on a pathologist’s minimum workload is also 50 cancer cases per year. It is recommended that the minimum workload for a breast pathologist in the UK be set at 50 primary breast cancer resection specimens per year with their related specimens. Such a workload would involve handling additional specimens, including non-cancer and cancer-related diagnostic speci-mens and those relating to follow-up and subsequent treatment episodes.
4.7.8 Specialist breast units
The publication in 1996 of Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Guidance for Purchasers6 recog-nised the importance of multidisciplinary working in breast units and the importance of high-quality pathology services as part of that process. It led to the formation of specialist breast units, which are helping to raise the standards of diagnosis and management of patients with breast disease and making more efficient use of resources.7
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 15
4.8 Resource implications
4.8.1 Provision of local services
The provision of high-quality pathology services depends on appropriate resourcing. This includes adequate staffing levels and funding to meet capital equipment and running costs. Breast histopa-thology and cytopathology service providers should comply with the Royal College of Pathologists’ workload guidance; updated guidance for breast pathology is provided at Appendix 5. Wherever possible, pathologists should be given access to additional PA support for CPD, audit and multi-disciplinary team meetings as set out in the Royal College of Pathologists’ guidelines.
4.8.2 Technical and secretarial support
High-quality histology and cytology services rely on adequate secretarial support. Breast screening pathology also makes particular demands on technical time: it may require a large number of blocks, for example specimen radiography and film development. Additional technical and secretarial sup-port is needed by regional coordinators when preparing material for QA purposes.
4.8.3 Specimen radiography equipment
High-quality specimen radiography equipment is vital for all laboratories handling breast specimens. Resources should be allocated for its maintenance and timely replacement, and it should be subject to a physics quality control programme.
4.8.4 Teaching facilities
Access to suitable teaching facilities (including closed circuit colour television, where available) is needed when local and national EQA cases are discussed at regional meetings.
4.8.5 IT support
All breast pathologists require adequate IT support, including personal computers and monitors capable of viewing digital x-ray images and web-based EQA and educational material.
i. The minimum specification for a computer and monitor for viewing digital web-based histological virtual slide preparations is
• Processor Minimum 3 GHz Intel processor, or equivalent• Memory Minimum 1 GB, ideal 4 GB• Graphics card Minimum 128 MB, ideal 512 MB; able to handle the appropriate
display• Display Able to handle minimum 1280 × 1024 in 32-bit colour• Hard disk Needed only if images are to be stored locally• Ethernet Minimum 5 Gb bandwidth, ideal 20 Mb bandwidth. (This figure is
for real working, not potential, bandwidth.)• Operating system Minimum Windows XP or equivalent
NHSBSP July 2011
16 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
ii. The recommended standard for IT equipment suitable for viewing digital x-ray material in pathology laboratories is the professional standard detailed in Table 2 below and described in Guidance on Image Display Equipment for Use in Breast Screening (NHSBSP Publication No 71).8
Table 2 Technical guidance on display equipment used in breast screening for digital images (liquid crystal display, LCD, only)
Parameter diagnostic Professional General
Display technology LCD LCD LCDColour/monochrome Monochrome Colour/monochrome Colour/monochromeConfiguration Pair of monitors Single monitor/pair Single monitorMonitor orientation Portrait Portrait LandscapeDisplay size (H × V) 32 cm × 42 cm approx 32 cm × 42 cm approx 33 cm × 27 cm approxImage size (diagonal) 50 cm approx 50 cm approx 43 cm approxNative resolution 5 MP
Typically 2048 × 2560 2–3 MPTypically 1200 × 1600
1 MPTypically 1280 × 1024
Pixel pitch 0.16 mm approx 0.27 mm approx 0.26 mm approxViewing angle 170° approx 170° approx 160° approxMaximum luminance available
700 cd/m2 700 cd/m2 400 cd/m2
Typical operating maximum luminance
500 cd/m2 500 cd/m2 300 cd/m2
Contrast ratio 600:1 1000:1 600:1Display calibration DICOMa DICOMa SMPTEb or DICOMa
Backlight stabiliser yes yes NoViewing environment Controlled diffuse
lightingControlled diffuse lighting
Subdued lighting
Certification and standards
ISO 13406-2 class 2, CE (Medical Device Directive), FDA 510(k)
ISO 13406-2 class 2, CE (Medical Device Directive), FDA 510(k)
ISO 13406-2 class 2, CE marking
aSoftware and hardware are required to calibrate the monitor and graphics card to the DICOM 3.14 grey-level display function. This must include suitable luminance test patterns pre-loaded on the workstation.
bSuitable test patterns such as AAPM or SMPTE are required pre-loaded on the workstation to check the luminance response.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 17
REFERENCES1. Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2005 (NHSBSP Publication No 58).2. Guidelines for Non-operative Diagnostic Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening. NHS Cancer
Screening Programmes, 2001 (NHSBSP Publication No 50).3. Tavassoli FA, Hoefler H, Rai J et al. Intraductal proliferative lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds) WHO
Classification of Tumours. Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, IARC Press, 2003: 63–73.4. Consolidated Guidance on Standards for the NHS Breast Screening Programme. NHS Cancer Screening
Programmes, 2005 (NHSBSP Publication No 60).5. Guidelines on Quality Assurance Visits. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2000 (NHSBSP Publication No 40).
Revision pending.6. Cancer Guidance Sub-Group of the Clinical Outcomes Group. Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer: Guidance
for Purchasers: The Manual. London, Department of Health, 1996.7. Kingsmore D, Hole D, Gillis C. Why does specialist treatment of breast cancer improve survival? The role of surgical
management. Br J Cancer, 2004, 90: 1920–1925.8. Guidance on Image Display Equipment for Use in Breast Screening. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2010
(NHSBSP Publication No 71). In preparation.9. Ellis IO, Coleman D, Wells C et al. Impact of a national external quality assurance scheme for breast pathology in
the UK. J Clin Pathol, 2006, 59: 138–145.10. Parham DM, Coleman D, Kodikara S, et al. The NHS breast screening programme (pathology) EQA: experience in
recent years relating to issues involved in individual performance appraisal. J Clin Pathol, 2006, 59: 130–137.
NHSBSP July 2011
18 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
APPENDIX 1: FORMS
SURGERY FORM
Surname:
Forenames: Date of Birth:
SX Number: NHS Number:
Page 1 of 3
Date Performed: Location: Consultant:
Side Assessed: Right Left¨¨
Lesions and Abnormalities:
SURGERY PROCEDURE
Surgeon:
Hospital Code: Hospital Number: What for:
Local Trial Code: In National Trial: Which Trial:
Diagnosis Treatment¡ ¡
Applies To All Lesions: ¨
LESION OR ABNORMALITY
Surgical Procedures
Diagnostic:
Treatment:
Breast Reconstruction:
Staging and Therapeutic:
Non-Surgical Treatments:
Procedure Comment:
Additional:
Additional:
Date Radiotherapy Started:
Pathology Report
No Yes
Date Reported:
Pathologist:
Specimen Radiograph?:
Mammo Abnormality?:
Histological Calcification:
Specimen Type:
Axillary Procedures:
Report Number:
Laboratory:
Specimen Weight (gm):
No YesUnsure
Absent MalignantBenign Both
¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
Benign Lesions
Benign Lesions?:
Benign Lesions:
Epithelial Proliferation:
Other Benign Lesion:
No Yes¡ ¡
KETTERING SO TITLE (KKE, NBSS_DEV) Surgery Form v1.2
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 19
SURGERY FORM
Surname:
Forenames: Date of Birth:
SX Number: NHS Number:
Page 2 of 3
Malignant Lesions
Malignant Lesions?:
In Situ Carcinoma Not Present:
In Situ Components:
DCIS Grade:
DCIS Growth Pattern(s):
Size (mm) if Ductal:
Microinvasion:
Other Growth Pattern:
No Yes
Ductal Paget'sLobular
High LowIntermediate Not assessable
Not present PossiblePresent
¡ ¡
¨ ¨ ¨
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¨
Malignant Invasive Lesions
Invasive Carcinoma Not Present:
Invasive Tumour Size (mm):
Whole Tumour Size (mm):
Invasive Tumour Type:
Other Invasive Type:
Invasive Components:
Other Component(s):
Invasive Grade:
Disease Extent:
Vascular Invasion:
Ductal/NST MixedPure Special Type Other
I IIIII Not assessable
Localised Not assessableMultiple
Not present PresentPossible
Tubular/cribriform MucinousLobular Medullary like
OtherDuctal/NST
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨¨¨
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡¡
¨
Axillary etc,
Axillary Nodes Present?:
Other Nodes Present?:
Excision Margins:
Oestrogen Receptor:
Progesterone Receptor:
HER 2 Status:
No Yes
No Yes
Not to margin UncertainReaches margin
Positive Not PerformedNegative
Positive Not PerformedNegative
Positive Not PerformedNegative Borderline
Total +ve Single Node Type:
Total +ve Site:
Quick (Allred) Score:
Quick (Allred) Score:
Score:
Excision Distance:
¡ ¡
¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
Opinion
Comments/additional information:
KETTERING SO TITLE (KKE, NBSS_DEV) Surgery Form v1.2
NHSBSP July 2011
20 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
SURGERY FORM
Surname:
Forenames: Date of Birth:
SX Number: NHS Number:
Page 3 of 3
Cancer on KC62:
Histological Diagnosis: H1 Normal H5 MalignantH2 Benign H0 Cannot report¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
Type of Site:
Needs Localising: Localisation:
Lesion Notes:
Single Multiple
X-Ray Guidance Uss Guidance Skin Marker
¡¡
¨ ¡ ¡ ¡
Lesion Header
¡ MRI
Lesion Description: Asymmetry Calcification only
Clinical abnormality
Cyst Distortion Lymph node
Mass Mass with calc.
Other:
¡ ¡
¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡
¡
No significant abnormality¡
¨
Date Episode Closed: Responsible Person: Clinical Team:
Final Action:
Recall Due Date:
RR - Routine Recall EC - Short Term Recall
Recall Reason: Other:Woman's Choice Clinical Uncertainty
CLOSE EPISODE
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡
KETTERING SO TITLE (KKE, NBSS_DEV) Surgery Form v1.2
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 21
CYTOLOGY FORM
Surname:
Forenames: Date of Birth:
SX Number: NHS Number:
Page 1 of 2
Date Performed: Location: Clinician:
Side Assessed: Right Left¨¨
Lesions and Abnormalities:
FNA PROCEDURE
Hospital Code: Number:
Time:
LESION OR ABNORMALITY
Specimen Acquisition
Localisation Type:
Specimen Type:
Clinical Details:
Palpation Prone stereoStereotactic X-ray
FNA Cyst Node aspirateFNA solid Nipple discharge
Ultrasound
Nipple/skin scrape
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¡¡ ¡ ¡¡
Cytology Result
Date Reported:
Pathologist:
Pathologist's Comments:
Report Number:
Laboratory:
Cytological Opinion:
C1 Unsatisfactory C3 UncertainC2 Benign C4 Suspicious¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ C5 Malignant¡
Type of Site:
Needs Localising: Localisation:
Lesion Notes:
Single Multiple
X-Ray Guidance Ultrasound Guidance Skin Marker
¡¡
¨ ¡ ¡ ¡
Lesion Header
Lesion Description: Asymmetry Calcification only
Clinical abnormality
Cyst Distortion Lymph node
Mass Mass with calc.
Other:
¡ ¡
¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡
¡
No significant abnormality¡
BREAST SCREENING SERVICE (FEP, Epping LIVE) Cytology Form v1.1
NHSBSP July 2011
22 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
CYTOLOGY FORM
Surname:
Forenames: Date of Birth:
SX Number: NHS Number:
Page 2 of 2
Date Episode Closed: Responsible Person: Clinical Team:
Final Action:
Recall Due Date:
RR - Routine Recall EC - Short Term Recall
Recall Reason: Other:Woman's Choice Clinical Uncertainty
CLOSE EPISODE
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡
BREAST SCREENING SERVICE (FEP, Epping LIVE) Cytology Form v1.1
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 23
HISTOLOGY FORM
Surname:
Forenames: Date of Birth:
SX Number: NHS Number:
Page 1 of 2
Date Performed: Location: Clinician:
Side Assessed: Right Left¨¨
Lesions and Abnormalities:
WBN PROCEDURE
Hospital Code: Number:
Time:
LESION OR ABNORMALITY
Specimen Acquisition
Localisation Type:
Localisation Marker Used?:
Number of Cores:
Specimen Type:
Lymph Node?:
Clinical Details:
Calc on Specimen X-ray?:
No Yes
NoYes Radiograph Not Seen
Palpation Prone stereoStereotactic X-ray
Core biopsy Vac excisionVac diagnostic Vac unsp
Ultrasound
Nipple/skin biopsy
¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡¨
Histology ResultDate Reported:
Pathologist:
Histological Opinion:
Malignancy Type:
Histological Calcification:
Pathologist's Comments:
Report Number:
Laboratory:
Absent MalignantBenign Both¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
B1 Unsatisfactory B3 UncertainB2 Benign B4 Suspicious¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ B5 Malignant
(b) Invasive (c) Not assessable(a) In-situ¡ ¡ ¡
¡
Benign Lesions
Benign Lesions:
Epithelial Proliferation:
Other Benign Lesion:
BREAST SCREENING SERVICE (FEP, Epping LIVE) Histology Form v1.1
NHSBSP July 2011
24 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
HISTOLOGY FORM
Surname:
Forenames: Date of Birth:
SX Number: NHS Number:
Page 2 of 2
Malignant In Situ Lesions
In Situ Carcinoma Not Present:
In Situ Components:
DCIS Grade:
Ductal Paget'sLobular
High LowIntermediate Not assessable
¨ ¨ ¨
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¨
Malignant Invasive Lesions
Invasive Carcinoma Not Present:
Invasive Tumour Size (mm):
Invasive Tumour Type:
Other Invasive Type:
Invasive Components:
Other Component(s):
Invasive Grade:
Ductal/NST MixedPure Special Type Other
I IIIII Not assessable
Tubular/cribriform MucinousLobular Medullary like
OtherDuctal/NST
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨¨¨
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
¨
Lesion Receptors
Oestrogen Receptor:
Progesterone Receptor:
HER 2 Status:
Positive Not PerformedNegative
Positive Not PerformedNegative
Positive Not PerformedNegative Borderline
Quick (Allred) Score:
Quick (Allred) Score:
Score:
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
Type of Site:
Needs Localising: Localisation:
Lesion Notes:
Single Multiple
X-Ray Guidance Ultrasound Guidance Skin Marker
¡¡
¨ ¡ ¡ ¡
Lesion Header
Lesion Description: Asymmetry Calcification only
Clinical abnormality
Cyst Distortion Lymph node
Mass Mass with calc.
Other:
¡ ¡
¡
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡
¡
No significant abnormality¡
Date Episode Closed: Responsible Person: Clinical Team:
Final Action:
Recall Due Date:
RR - Routine Recall EC - Short Term Recall
Recall Reason: Other:Woman's Choice Clinical Uncertainty
CLOSE EPISODE
¡ ¡ ¡
¡ ¡
BREAST SCREENING SERVICE (FEP, Epping LIVE) Histology Form v1.1
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 25
APPENDIX 2: BREAST HISTOPATHOLOGY – EXAMPLE SYNOPTIC REPORTSPECIMEN TYPE • DIAGNOSTIC MARKER
• THERAPEUTIC MARKER• WIDE LOCAL EXCISION• RE-EXCISION• OTHER
• SIMPLE MASTECTOMy• SUBCUTANEOUS/SKIN-
SPARING• MASTECTOMy• PATEy/MODIFIED RADICAL
MASTECTOMy• ONCOPLASTIC MAMMOPLASTy
SIDE RIGHT LEFT
Specimen radiograph provided
yES NO
Radiological abnormality seen
yES NO UNCERTAIN
Radiological lesion • STELLATE LESION• CIRCUMSCRIBED MASS
• CALCIFICATION• PARENCHyMAL DEFORMITy
Lesion position in specimen x-ray
CENTRAL CLOSE TO MARGIN
Radiological abnormality corresponds to macroscopic lesion
yES NO NOT APPLICABLE
Histological calcification present
BENIGN MALIGNANT BENIGN AND MALIGNANT
ABSENT
Specimen weight gm
Ellipse of skin X mm
Nipple NORMAL INDRAWN NOT ASSESSABLE
Fibrous fatty tissue X X mm
Lesion location OUQ OLQ IUQ ILQ RETROAREOLAR NOT KNOWN
A well defined/moderately defined/poorly defined lesion is seenmeasuring mm superior to inferior x mm medial to lateral x mm anterior to posterior
Distance from nipple mm
Macroscopic distance to margins
mm to lateralmm to medialmm to superiormm to inferior
FINAL PATHOLOGY MALIGNANT INVASIVE
Main category Components
DUCTAL/NST NST BASAL
PURE SPECIAL TyPE (SPECIFy COMPONENTS)
TUBULAR MEDULLARy-LIKE
MIXED (SPECIFy COMPONENTS)
LOBULAR
OTHER PRIMARy CARCINOMA
MUCINOUS
NHSBSP July 2011
26 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
OTHER MALIGNANT TUMOUR
OTHER
Invasive carcinoma size mm
Whole tumour (DCIS + invasive carcinoma) size
mm
Extent LOCALISED MULTIPLE FOCI
Grade 1 2 3 T 1 2 3 P 1 2 3 M 1 2 3 N/A
TUMOUR TYPE NST TUBULAR MIXED INVASIVE PAPILLARy
MEDULLARy-LIKE/NST with lymphocyte-rich stroma
MIXED DUCTAL AND SPECIAL TyPE INVASIVE MICRO-PAPILLARy
BASAL MIXED DUCTAL AND LOBULAR METAPLASTIC
NST/APOCRINE LOBULAR – CLASSICAL OTHER RARE/NEW TyPE
TUBULAR LOBULAR – SOLID NOT ASSESSABLE
INVASIVE CRIBRIFORM
LOBULAR – ALVEOLAR OTHER (describe)
MUCINOUS LOBULAR – MIXED
TUBULO-LOBULAR
Vascular invasion NONE PROBABLE DEFINITE
Associated DCIS NONE MINIMAL EXTENSIVE (>1mm beyond invasive)
DCIS grade LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH
DCIS architecture SOLID CRIBRIFORM MICRO-PAPILLARy
PAPILLARy CARCINOMA IN SITU
DCIS necrosis yES NO
Lobular neoplasia present
yES NO (ALH LCIS)
Paget’s disease present yES NO NOT APPLICABLE
EXCISION
Excision statusmastectomy specimen
COMPLETE INCOMPLETE UNCERTAIN
Wide local excision specimen
Invasive tumour reaches margins
yES NO
Closest relevant margin(s) to invasive tumour
at mm distant at mm distant
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 27
DCIS reaches margins yES NO
Closest relevant margin(s) to DCIS
at mm distant at mm distant
Re-excision specimen yES NO
Re-excision specimen details
Final excision statuswide local excision specimen
COMPLETE INCOMPLETE UNCERTAIN
Stage 1 2 3 N/A
Lymph nodes sampled yES NO
Number of axillary nodes sampled (including apical nodes)
Number of axillary nodes containing tumour (including apical nodes)
Size of largest metastasis Isolated tumour cells (< 0.2mm)
Micrometastasis (> 0.2 mm to < 2 mm)
Macrometastasis (>2mm)
Apical nodes sampled yES NO
Number of apical nodes sampled
Number of apical nodes containing tumour
STAGE COMMENTS
Nottingham Prognostic Index
Oestrogen receptor status
POSITIVE NEGATIVE TO FOLLOW
% Positive cells – (0–100) Quick score – H score – (0–300)
Internal control satisfactory
yES NO
Progesterone receptor status
POSTIVE NEGATIVE TO FOLLOW
% Positive cells – (0–100) Quick score – H score – (0–300)
Internal control satisfactory
yES NO
HER-2 status immunohistochemistry
POSITIVE NEGATIVE TO FOLLOW
0 SIGNIFICANCE – NEGATIVE1+ SIGNIFICANCE – NEGATIVE2+ SIGNIFICANCE – BORDERLINE3+ SIGNIFICANCE – POSITIVE
FISH NON-AMPLIFIEDEQUIVOCALAMPLIFIEDREQUESTED
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
SNOMED
NHSBSP July 2011
28 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
APPENDIX 3: EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCHEME IN BREAST SCREENING PATHOLOGYThis outline description of the UK National Breast Pathology EQA scheme is accurate at the time of writing. However the scheme is under continual review and may change in the light of experience and future developments. Full, current details can be found on the NCCBP website (http://www.nccbp.com/).
Summary of the scheme
The EQA scheme in breast screening pathology is based on consensus: unless there is clear evi-dence to the contrary, the correct diagnosis is generally accepted to be that made by the majority of participants.* In addition to identifying substandard performance the scheme has significant educational value, giving participants regular opportunities to compare and discuss their diagnoses. For this reason, some rare and difficult lesions may be included. Cases deemed unsuitable are those that generate insufficient agreement among the participants. Another advantage of this approach is that it allows valid studies of diagnostic consistency to be made, as cases are selected in a random manner within diagnostic categories.
Operation of the scheme
Three sets of 15 slides are sent to each regional QARC every six months; three slides in each set are considered purely educational and, since agreement on them is not required, are excluded from the statistics. Each QARC arranges for the slides to be circulated over a period of around four months to consultant pathologists registered with the scheme in their regions. Participants report the sections using the printed EQA reporting form or an electronic form completed and submitted via the NCCBP website. Completed forms are forwarded to the Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit (CSEU) at the Institute of Cancer Research, where the responses are analysed.
Apart from investigating the consistency with which major diagnoses are made, the scheme is also used to determine the level of agreement when reporting prognostic features such as tumour size, grade and type.
Assessing performance
The assessment of performance is based on four major diagnostic categories: benign, atypical hyperplasia, in situ carcinoma (including microinvasive carcinoma) and invasive carcinoma. In each group, cases are included in the assessment only if there is a majority diagnosis of at least 80%.
If a participant’s diagnosis accords with the majority opinion, a score of 3 is given. A score of 2 is awarded if the diagnosis deviates by one group, 1 if it deviates by two groups, and 0 if it deviates
*Compare ‘proficiency testing’ schemes, in which correct diagnoses are determined in advance by the organisers.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 29
by three groups. Thus, for a majority diagnosis of invasive carcinoma, scores of 3, 2, 1 and 0 would be awarded for diagnoses of invasive carcinoma, in situ carcinoma, atypical hyperplasia and benign respectively. Each participant’s scores are then added together. A participant is deemed to be a ‘persistent substandard performer’ if her total score for a circulation falls below the fifth percentile of the whole group and remains below this level in one of the next two circulations. Participants are informed of their score in each round and whether it is above or below the fifth percentile.
Release of results
The consistency of diagnoses and of the reporting of prognostic features in each case is analysed, and these general analyses are sent to all participants in anonymised form.† They are thus able to see the spread of opinions and how their own relate to those of the majority. There is evidence that this process promotes diagnostic consistency.9,10
Substandard performance
Any individual with a mark of 0 or 1 should review the slide in the light of comments made at the review session, reflect on the case, and decide if further educational activity is needed. Further action to be taken on identifying consistently substandard performance follows the guidance of the Royal College of Pathologists and the National Quality Assurance Advisory Panel (NQAAP). Like that guidance it will change over time; current arrangements are set out on the Royal College of Pathologists’ website.‡
Participants appreciate the value of a specialist EQA scheme. Even the best directed and managed schemes are not infallible, however, and may not fully reflect the performance of a histopathologist in daily diagnostic practice. The EQA scheme is, in this sense, primarily a screening procedure designed to identify a small number of pathologists who may be performing inadequately in their clinical practice. The first response is therefore to determine if that is indeed the case: if so, the second is to determine the cause of the problem so that appropriate educational or other remedial action may be taken.
Participation
It is mandatory that consultant pathologists who are routinely involved in reporting on breast pathol-ogy within the NHSBSP participate in the EQA scheme. They are awarded two CME points for completing a circulation and one for attending a regional meeting. Given that all those taking part in the scheme will regularly be reporting breast specimens, and that cases are included for scoring only where a majority of 80% are in agreement, participants are not permitted to omit any cases.
Participation is monitored and pathologists are normally expected to participate in at least two out of every three circulations. At the end of each circulation, CSEU provides regional coordina-tors with the names of participants for that circulation. Unlike the results for individual readers (which are identified by a code number rather than a name), participation in the scheme is thus not
†A secretary in the CSEU links participants’ codes to their names and addresses so that the scheme organiser and other CSEU members are unaware of individual participants’ opinions.‡For details see the relevant page of the Royal College of Pathologists’ website (http://www.rcpath.org/index.asp?PageID=1052).
NHSBSP July 2011
30 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
anonymous. A certificate of participation for each circulation is issued by the QARC through the regional pathology coordinator to those who fulfil the criteria outlined here.
Trainees may participate in the EQA scheme. Their scores are not included in this assessment process, however; only consultants who take ultimate responsibility for their diagnoses in their normal working practice are assessed.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 31
APPENDIX 4: SPECIFICATION FOR A REGIONAL COORDINATOR IN BREAST SCREENING PATHOLOGY
Agreement objective
To provide a regional coordinator in the QA aspects of breast screening pathology for the regional QA programme for breast screening. Agreements should normally be for a minimum period of three years.
Definition of the service to be provided
The postholder will develop and manage QA initiatives in pathology in the NHSBSP. They will be a member of the multidisciplinary QA team and will be involved in assessing performance of all the breast screening centres in the region, which includes monitoring and evaluating results and reporting findings and their implications to the regional QA manager. They will also be involved in making formal QA visits with other members of the regional team.
In addition they will
• ensure that the NHSBSP guidelines for pathologists and updates are communicated and understood by pathologists involved in breast pathology service provision, and will monitor their implementation
• represent the region on the National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology• coordinate the national EQA scheme within the region but will have no role in identifying sub-
standard performance. They will hold meetings (at least twice yearly) to discuss the circulated slides and accompanying analyses and ideally circulate additional cases for discussion
• assist screening units and the regional cancer registry in maintaining a complete, accurate and timely record of all pathologically confirmed breast cancers detected by the screening programme
• provide advice for health authorities on matters of breast care QA• manage, initiate, lead and develop all other regional QA initiatives of the screening programme
relevant to pathology for the whole region• facilitate research within their region as appropriate. They should also ensure that the neces-
sary specialised diagnostic techniques (eg hormone receptor determinations) are available to regional pathologists where required.
Outcome measures
Accurate and standardised pathology data from the whole of the region from the breast screening programme.
NHSBSP July 2011
32 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
Standards
The postholder will follow the guidelines for breast pathology services agreed by the Royal College of Pathologists and the NHSBSP National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology.
Administrative and technical support
The administrative and technical support necessary for the post will be provided by the breast screening programme and should include secretarial and laboratory technical support if required.
Location of post
It is expected that the postholder will undertake the histological and/or cytological reporting of biopsies and aspirates from screened and symptomatic women from a breast unit assessment centre in the region and be based in a department undertaking such work.
Term of agreement
This agreement would be subject to annual review.
Financial allocation
The regional QA programme will contribute to the costs of an NHS consultant post to the employer.§
§Figure to be agreed between commissioner and host hospital but should be at least one programmed activity depending on the size of the region and responsibilities.
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 33
APPENDIX 5: TEMPLATE PATHOLOGY QUALITY ASSURANCE VISIT QUESTIONNAIRE
NHSBSP July 2011
34 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
SC
RE
EN
ING
QA
PA
TH
OLO
GY
VIS
IT Q
UE
ST
ION
NA
IRE
Uni
t...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..D
ate
of v
isit
......
......
......
......
......
......
..
Lead
bre
ast p
atho
logi
st...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..B
reas
t pat
holo
gy s
essi
ons
......
......
......
......
......
......
.. (W
TE)
Uni
t pat
holo
gist
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..B
reas
t pat
holo
gy s
essi
ons
......
......
......
......
......
......
.. (W
TE)
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
Bre
ast p
atho
logy
ses
sion
s...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
(WTE
)...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..B
reas
t pat
holo
gy s
essi
ons
......
......
......
......
......
......
.. (W
TE)
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
Bre
ast p
atho
logy
ses
sion
s...
......
......
......
......
......
.....
(WTE
)...
......
......
......
......
......
......
..B
reas
t pat
holo
gy s
essi
ons
......
......
......
......
......
......
.. (W
TE)
QU
ES
TIO
NS
PAT
HO
LOG
Y T
EA
M C
OM
ME
NT
S
PR
EV
IOU
S V
ISIT
Issu
es fr
om th
e pr
evio
us v
isit
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Out
stan
ding
issu
es...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...
WO
RK
LOA
DA
nnua
l wo
rklo
ad
Cyt
opat
holo
gy s
ervi
ce
Num
ber
of g
ynae
colo
gica
l spe
cim
ens
per
annu
m
Num
ber
of n
on-g
ynae
colo
gica
l spe
cim
ens
per
annu
m
Num
ber
of W
TE
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 35
QU
ES
TIO
NS
PAT
HO
LOG
Y T
EA
M C
OM
ME
NT
S
WO
RK
LOA
D (C
ON
TIN
UE
D)
His
topa
thol
ogy
serv
ice
Num
ber
of s
peci
men
s pe
r an
num
Num
ber
of W
TE
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Aut
opsy
ser
vice
Num
ber
of a
utop
sy s
peci
men
s pe
r an
num
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Bre
ast
How
man
y br
east
spe
cim
ens
are
repo
rted
per
ann
um?
Bre
ast F
NA
C
App
roxi
mat
e sc
reen
ing/
sym
ptom
atic
spl
it
Wid
e-bo
re n
eedl
e co
re b
iops
ies
App
roxi
mat
e sc
reen
ing/
sym
ptom
atic
spl
it
Sur
gica
l spe
cim
ens
App
roxi
mat
e sc
reen
ing/
sym
ptom
atic
spl
it
Froz
en s
ectio
ns
App
roxi
mat
e sc
reen
ing/
sym
ptom
atic
spl
it
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
STA
FFIN
G/A
CC
RE
DIT
AT
ION
Who
dep
utis
es in
the
abse
nce
of th
e le
ad b
reas
t pat
holo
gist
?
Do
all c
onsu
ltant
s pa
rtic
ipat
e in
bre
ast s
cree
ning
ser
vice
s w
ork?
Are
all
path
olog
y sa
mpl
es fr
om th
e lo
cal b
reas
t scr
eeni
ng s
ervi
ce
repo
rted
in th
e la
bora
tory
?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
NHSBSP July 2011
36 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
STA
FFIN
G/A
CC
RE
DIT
AT
ION
(CO
NT
INU
ED
)
How
man
y pa
thol
ogis
ts re
port
cyt
opat
holo
gy a
nd h
isto
path
olog
y sp
ecim
ens
gene
rate
d by
the
loca
l bre
ast s
cree
ning
ser
vice
in y
our
labo
rato
ry?
Doe
s th
e cu
rren
t num
ber
of m
edic
al s
taff
sess
ions
in th
e la
bora
tory
co
mpl
y w
ith R
CP
ath/
CPA
gui
delin
es?
Wha
t cro
ss-c
over
arr
ange
men
ts a
re in
pla
ce b
etw
een
the
brea
st
path
olog
ists
?
Is th
e la
bora
tory
sta
ffing
ade
quat
e?
Is th
e se
cret
aria
l sup
port
ade
quat
e?
Wha
t is
the
curr
ent s
tatu
s of
CPA
acc
redi
tatio
n?
•fu
ll
•co
nditi
onal
(ple
ase
give
reas
ons)
•re
ferr
ed (p
leas
e gi
ve re
ason
s)
Whe
n is
the
next
CPA
revi
ew d
ate?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
LAB
OR
AT
OR
Y P
RO
CE
SS
Who
repo
rts
•br
east
cyt
opat
holo
gy s
ampl
es?
•br
east
his
topa
thol
ogy
sam
ples
?
Is im
med
iate
cyt
olog
y re
port
ing
unde
rtak
en?
Who
per
form
s th
e as
pira
tions
?
Are
ade
quat
e sp
ecim
en tr
ansp
ort f
acili
ties
avai
labl
e?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 37
LAB
OR
AT
OR
Y P
RO
CE
SS
(CO
NT
INU
ED
)
Do
spec
imen
s ar
rive
in a
sat
isfa
ctor
y st
ate
for
exam
inat
ion?
Are
ded
icat
ed s
peci
men
x-r
ay fa
cilit
ies
avai
labl
e?
Is a
cces
s to
spe
cim
en r
adio
grap
hy a
dequ
ate?
Is th
e qu
ality
of s
peci
men
rad
iogr
aphs
ade
quat
e?
Are
cop
ies
of s
peci
men
rad
iogr
aphs
sup
plie
d w
ith s
peci
men
s?
Are
the
natio
nal g
uide
lines
for
mac
rosc
opic
exa
min
atio
n an
d
sam
plin
g of
spe
cim
ens
follo
wed
?
Is s
peci
men
wei
ght r
outin
ely
reco
rded
?
Wha
t are
the
aver
age
turn
arou
nd ti
mes
for
scre
enin
g ca
ses?
•cy
tolo
gy s
ampl
es
•ne
edle
bio
psy
sam
ples
•op
en b
iops
ies
(incl
udin
g lo
calis
atio
n bi
opsi
es)
Are
you
sat
isfie
d w
ith th
e cu
rren
t lab
orat
ory
equi
pmen
t and
m
aint
enan
ce?
Is th
e eq
uipm
ent r
epla
cem
ent p
roce
ss s
atis
fact
ory?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
NHSBSP July 2011
38 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N
Is c
omm
unic
atio
n w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing
staf
f sat
isfa
ctor
y:
•ra
diol
ogis
ts?
•su
rgeo
ns?
•sc
reen
ing
staf
f?•
onco
logi
sts?
Are
mul
tidis
cipl
inar
y m
eetin
gs d
ealin
g w
ith p
atie
nt m
anag
emen
t hel
d
•pr
ospe
ctiv
ely?
•re
tros
pect
ivel
y?
How
oft
en a
re m
ultid
isci
plin
ary
team
mee
tings
hel
d?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
DA
TA C
OLL
EC
TIO
N
Do
path
olog
ists
pro
vide
the
brea
st s
cree
ning
his
topa
thol
ogy
natio
nal
min
imum
dat
a se
t?
Do
path
olog
ists
use
the
reco
mm
ende
d di
agno
stic
cat
egor
ies
for
cyto
logy
and
nee
dle
biop
sy s
peci
men
s?
If no
, why
not
?
Is a
syn
optic
repo
rtin
g sy
stem
use
d?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
QU
ALI
TY
AS
SU
RA
NC
E
Do
path
olog
ists
par
ticip
ate
in th
e na
tiona
l bre
ast s
cree
ning
hi
stop
atho
logy
EQ
A s
chem
e?
(The
QA
Ref
eren
ce C
entr
e w
ill p
rovi
de c
onfir
mat
ion
for
the
visi
t)
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 39
QU
ALI
TY
AS
SU
RA
NC
E (C
ON
TIN
UE
D)
Is th
e la
bora
tory
invo
lved
in in
tern
al a
udit
rega
rdin
g:
•br
east
cyt
opat
holo
gy?
•br
east
his
topa
thol
ogy?
•ot
her
path
olog
y?
Wha
t res
ults
wer
e ob
tain
ed a
nd w
hat c
hang
es h
ave
been
mad
e as
a
cons
eque
nce
of in
tern
al a
udit?
Doe
s th
e la
bora
tory
par
ticip
ate
in a
ny te
chni
cal E
QA
sch
emes
? If
so,
whi
ch o
nes?
Doe
s th
e de
part
men
t sup
port
any
clin
ical
tria
ls?
If so
, whi
ch o
nes?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
TR
AIN
ING
/CM
E
Is th
ere
adeq
uate
sup
port
and
cov
er a
rran
gem
ents
to e
nabl
e pa
thol
ogis
ts to
att
end
rele
vant
edu
catio
nal c
ours
es?
Hav
e al
l bre
ast p
atho
logi
sts
atte
nded
any
bre
ast s
cree
ning
upd
ate
cour
ses
sinc
e th
e la
st v
isit?
Ple
ase
deta
il
Are
pat
holo
gist
s’ C
PD
por
tfol
ios
mai
ntai
ned
to R
CP
ath
stan
dard
s?
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
PE
RFO
RM
AN
CE
AS
SE
SS
ME
NT
/PE
ER
RE
VIE
W
To b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t by
the
visi
ting
path
olog
ist
OT
HE
R IS
SU
ES
Are
ther
e an
y ot
her
issu
es y
ou w
ould
like
to r
aise
with
the
visi
ting
team
?
NHSBSP July 2011
40 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
APPENDIX 6: ROYAL COLLEGE OF PATHOLOGISTS: WORKLOAD COMPLEXITY FOR BREAST PATHOLOGY
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 41
Type
of s
peci
men
Num
ber
of b
lock
s ta
ken
– m
edia
n (ra
nge)
Spe
cial
feat
ures
(le
vels
, sta
ins)
Inte
rpre
tativ
e w
orkl
oad
(in
mul
tiple
s of
six
m
inut
es)
Pro
visi
onal
co
mpl
exity
gr
oup
(1–6
)
Com
men
ts
FNA
CN
A
Bre
ast c
ore
biop
sy1
Leve
ls a
nd IH
C
som
e ca
ses
12
Bre
ast c
ore
biop
sy w
ith fo
ur o
r m
ore
leve
ls
and/
or im
mun
ohis
toch
emis
try
1Le
vels
and
IHC
23
Dia
gnos
tic m
amm
otom
e bi
opsy
spe
cim
en3
Leve
ls a
nd IH
C
som
e ca
ses
23
Mam
mot
ome
exci
sion
spe
cim
en4
Leve
ls a
nd IH
C
som
e ca
ses
23
Exc
isio
n (u
norie
ntat
ed) b
enig
n br
east
lesi
on2
IHC
som
e ca
ses
12
Exc
isio
n be
nign
bre
ast l
esio
n re
quiri
ng 3
-D
orie
ntat
ion
6IH
C s
ome
case
s2
3
Red
uctio
n m
amm
opla
sty
(uni
late
ral o
r bi
late
ral)
41
2
Exc
isio
n m
aste
ctom
y sc
ar (r
econ
stru
ctio
n)2
12
Pro
phyl
actic
mas
tect
omy
91
2
Nip
ple
biop
sy1
IHC
som
e ca
ses
13
Mic
rodo
chec
tom
y4
IHC
som
e ca
ses
13
Tota
l duc
t cle
aran
ce4
12
Impl
ant c
apsu
le e
xam
inat
ion
21
1
Dia
gnos
tic s
urgi
cal e
xcis
ion
biop
sy n
on-
palp
able
mic
roca
lcifi
c le
sion
s8
Spe
cim
en x
-ray
, IH
C s
ome
case
s2
3M
ay u
se la
rge
bloc
ks
Dia
gnos
tic s
urgi
cal e
xcis
ion
biop
sy o
f mas
s 4
23
Wid
e lo
cal e
xcis
ion
for
mal
igna
nt
calc
ifica
tion/
DC
IS re
quiri
ng 3
-D o
rient
atio
n15
Spe
cim
en x
-ray
35
May
use
larg
e bl
ocks
Wid
e lo
cal e
xcis
ion
mal
igna
nt m
ass
lesi
on
103
5
NHSBSP July 2011
42 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services
Type
of s
peci
men
Num
ber
of b
lock
s ta
ken
– m
edia
n (ra
nge)
Spe
cial
feat
ures
(le
vels
, sta
ins)
Inte
rpre
tativ
e w
orkl
oad
(in
mul
tiple
s of
six
m
inut
es)
Pro
visi
onal
co
mpl
exity
gr
oup
(1–6
)
Com
men
ts
Mas
tect
omy
spec
imen
for
mal
igna
nt m
ass
102
4
Mas
tect
omy
spec
imen
for
mal
igna
nt
calc
ifica
tion/
DC
IS12
Spe
cim
en x
-ray
so
me
case
s3
4M
ay u
se la
rge
bloc
ks
Re-
exci
sion
of b
reas
t tum
our
61
3Ve
ry d
epen
dent
on
size
Axi
llary
nod
e di
ssec
tion
5–15
(see
co
mm
ents
)2
3B
lock
num
ber
varie
s w
ith lo
cal p
ract
ice:
on
e no
de p
er b
lock
or
mul
tiple
nod
es p
er
bloc
k
Sen
tinel
lym
ph n
ode
(SLN
) bio
psy
5Le
vels
and
IHC
so
me
case
s2
2A
vera
ge n
umbe
r of
S
LNs
is 2
.2
Axi
llary
nod
e sa
mpl
e6
Leve
ls a
nd IH
C
som
e ca
ses
22
Froz
en s
ectio
n of
SLN
11
2
Touc
h im
prin
t cyt
olog
y of
SLN
NA
2
Mor
e co
mpl
ex c
ases
, eg
requ
iring
x-r
ay
of b
lock
s/sl
ices
, rep
eate
d bl
ock
sele
ctio
n se
ssio
ns, o
r m
ultip
art m
amm
ogra
phic
ally
lo
calis
ed m
alig
nanc
y w
ith s
peci
men
x-r
ays
and
sepa
rate
mar
gina
l sam
ples
15 –
see
com
men
tsS
peci
men
x-r
ay a
nd
IHC
som
e ca
ses
56
Hor
mon
e re
cept
or s
tatu
s (E
R a
nd P
R)
IHC
13
HE
R-2
sta
tus
IHC
onl
yIH
C1
3
HE
R-2
sta
tus
IHC
and
FIS
HIH
C a
nd F
ISH
33
HE
R-2
sta
tus
FIS
H o
nly
FIS
H2
3
HE
R-2
sta
tus
CIS
H o
nly
CIS
H1
3
NHSBSP July 2011
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services | 43
NHSBSP July 2011
44 | Quality Assurance Guidelines for Breast Pathology Services