Back to Authors

Idowu, Michael O.

0000-0002-7416-5444

Mayo Clinic

Virginia Commonwealth University

Citations 3

Molecular Testing in Anatomic Pathology and Adherence to Guidelines: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 2230 Testing Events Reported by 26 Institutions
Volmar, Keith E., Souers, Rhona J., Nakhleh, Raouf E. , Idowu, Michael O.

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | August 28, 2015 | Volume: 139 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1115-1124

10.5858/arpa.2014-0513-cp Get It

Context The appropriate and timely performance of molecular testing in anatomic pathology is an indicator of quality. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) publishes a comprehensive treatment guideline that includes recommendations for ancillary testing. Objective To establish benchmarks for rates of adherence to NCCN testing recommendations through a multi-institutional study. Design Participants in a 2013 Q-Probes study of the College of American Pathologists reported data from molecular testing on anatomic pathology cases, excluding hematolymphoid neoplasms, breast primary carcinomas, and gynecologic cytology. Results Twenty-six institutions reported data from 2230 molecular testing events. In a retrospective study limited to colon, lung, and melanoma, there was strict adherence to guidelines in a median 71% (10th to 90th percentile range, 33%–90%) and there was at least loose adherence in a median 95% (10th to 90th percentile range, 57%–100%). There was adequate tissue to complete testing in a median 98% (10th to 90th percentile range, 86%–100%); in aggregate the adequacy rate for cell blocks was lower (84%, P < .001). Median test turnaround time was 8 days (10th to 90th percentile range, 4–13 days). In a prospective collection of all organ sites, there was strict adherence to guidelines in a median 53% (10th to 90th percentile range, 20%–71%), and there was at least loose adherence in a median 94% (10th to 90th percentile range, 75%–100%). Adherence to guidelines was higher for lung specimens and in institutions with more multidisciplinary conferences. Conclusions This multi-institutional study provides benchmarking data on appropriateness and timeliness of molecular testing in anatomic pathology.
Turnaround Time for Large or Complex Specimens in Surgical Pathology: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 56 Institutions
Volmar, Keith E., Souers, Rhona J., Karcher, Donald S. , Nakhleh, Raouf E. , Idowu, Michael O.

Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | January 22, 2015 | Volume: 139 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 171-177

10.5858/arpa.2013-0671-cp Get It

Context Turnaround time (TAT) for large or complex surgical pathology specimens is an indicator of efficiency in anatomic pathology and may affect coordination of patient care. Objective To establish benchmarks for TAT and to identify practice characteristics that may influence TAT. Design Participants in a 2012 Q-Probes quality improvement program of the College of American Pathologists retrospectively reviewed all surgical pathology cases from the prior 6 months to identify up to 50 cases coded as Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 88307 (excluding biopsies) or 88309. Participants reported the times and dates of accessioning and final sign-out. Results A total of 56 institutions reported on 2763 large or complex cases, which included 70% with CPT code 88307 and 30% with CPT code 88309. Cases requiring special handling comprised 51.5%, and 48.5% were routine. Among all institutions the median TAT was 2.72 calendar days (10th–90th percentile range, 6.23–1.22 days). Longer TAT occurred in governmental institutions (median, 6.06 versus 2.13 days; P < .001) and in institutions that mandate overnight fixation for some specimen types (median, 3.83 versus 2.07 days; P = .03). Longer TAT was associated with CPT code 88309 (median, 3.99 versus 2.82 days; P < .001), special handling (median, 4.13 versus 1.94 days; P < .001), frozen section (median, 3.38 versus 2.92 days; P < .001), radical cancer resection (P < .001), and malignant cases (P < .001). Turnaround time was not significantly affected by either pathology training programs or routine weekend sign-out. Conclusion This study provides benchmark data for TAT in large or complex surgical pathology specimens. Turnaround time was good overall, but the range among participating institutions was wide.
Surgical Pathology Report Defects: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 73 Institutions
Volmar, Keith E., Hunt, Jennifer L., Souers, Rhona J., Meier, Frederick A., Nakhleh, Raouf E. , Idowu, Michael O.

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine | April 30, 2014 | Volume: 138 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 602-612

10.5858/arpa.2013-0099-cp Get It

Context .—The rate of surgical pathology report defects is an indicator of quality and it affects clinician satisfaction. Objective .—To establish benchmarks for defect rates and defect fractions through a large, multi-institutional prospective application of standard taxonomy. Design .—Participants in a 2011 Q-Probes study of the College of American Pathologists prospectively reviewed all surgical pathology reports that underwent changes to correct defects and reported details regarding the defects. Results .—Seventy-three institutions reported 1688 report defects discovered in 360 218 accessioned cases, for an aggregate defect rate of 4.7 per 1000 cases. Median institutional defect rate was 5.7 per 1000 (10th to 90th percentile range, 13.5–0.9). Defect rates were higher in institutions with a pathology training program (8.5 versus 5.0 per 1000, P = .01) and when a set percentage of cases were reviewed after sign-out (median, 6.7 versus 3.8 per 1000, P = .10). Defect types were as follows: 14.6% misinterpretations, 13.3% misidentifications, 13.7% specimen defects, and 58.4% other report defects. Overall, defects were most often detected by pathologists (47.4%), followed by clinicians (22.0%). Misinterpretations and specimen defects were most often detected by pathologists (73.5% and 82.7% respectively, P < .001), while misidentifications were most often discovered by clinicians (44.6%, P < .001). Misidentification rates were lower when all malignancies were reviewed by a second pathologist before sign-out (0.0 versus 0.6 per 1000, P < .001), and specimen defect rates were lower when intradepartmental review of difficult cases was conducted after sign-out (0.0 versus 0.4 per 1000, P = .02). Conclusion .—This study provides benchmarking data on report defects and defect fractions using standardized taxonomy.