Quality Assessment of Reporting Performance for EGFR Molecular Diagnosis in Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer

AbstractBackground.Reports serve as a bridge between laboratories and clinicians, help synthesize an overwhelming amount of raw data into evidence‐based medicine, and play a significant role in designing clinical treatments. In an effort to guarantee high‐quality epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation testing and reporting performance, the National Center for Clinical Laboratories launched a proficiency testing (PT) scheme reflecting clinical practices in China since 2014. This study focuses on the quality assessment of gene mutation reports.Materials and Methods.Fifty‐three laboratories that submitted reports in both 2014 and 2016 EGFR gene mutation PT schemes were selected for report analysis and comparison according to predefined evaluation criteria.Results.The average score for reports from 2014 was 14 out of 30 points. The overall scores for reports from 2016 improved substantially, yielding an average score of 20 out of 30 points. Among the evaluation criteria, general items were well documented in the reports. However, items specific to molecular diagnosis were far from satisfactory, and some items were even missing.Conclusion.The quality assessment of clinical written reports from 2014 and 2016 demonstrates that substantial improvements have been made in overall reporting performance. However, not all statements pertaining to important elements met expectations. To continue education, repeated PT schemes need to be executed in a timely fashion to expose and address existing shortcomings in clinical reports. There remains ample room for improvement towards generating concise, comprehensive, and readable reports.Implications for Practice.This article compares the quality of clinical gene mutation reports submitted in 2014 to those submitted in 2016 epidermal growth factor receptor proficiency testing schemes, exposes the existing shortcomings, and discusses ways to communicate results more effectively in the future. The findings demonstrate that notable progress was observed in the overall reporting performance. However, key points specific to molecular diagnosis were far from expectation, and some items were even missing. Standardization needs to be emphasized to improve the report format and content. This article provides a reference that laboratories can use to write concise, comprehensive, and readily accessible clinical reports.

http://ift.tt/2ul2DE6