Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine
August 3, 2026 · via Europe PMC
A Stakeholder-Driven Workflow Management System for the Continuous Improvement of the College of American Pathologists Cancer Protocols.
Hulkower KI, Patel A, Carithers E, +7 more, Klepeis VE.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
A review of a major pathology organization's process for updating its widely-used standardized cancer reporting templates found that nearly a third of stakeholder-submitted inquiries over two years led to actual protocol updates, with most resolved within a week, demonstrating an effective, responsive system for keeping these important clinical tools current based on real-world user feedback.
What was studied
A description and analysis of the College of American Pathologists' quality management system for creating and maintaining its standardized Cancer Protocols (used by over 9,500 licensed users for cancer pathology reporting), examining how stakeholder inquiries submitted in 2023-2024 were tracked, triaged, and resolved.
Key findings
- Of 507 total inquiries submitted, 156 (31%) resulted in an actual update to the protocols, demonstrating that a substantial portion of stakeholder feedback leads to meaningful changes.
- Despite 278 inquiries (55%) requiring input from an expert committee, 446 inquiries (88%) were resolved within 7 days, indicating a generally responsive review process even for more complex issues.
- Most inquiries involved content-related questions (56%), with technical issues being minimal (12%); breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and gynecologic cancer protocols generated the most inquiries overall, and the large majority of inquiries (78%) were submitted through the organization's preferred communication channel.
Clinical relevance
The findings demonstrate that this stakeholder-driven quality management system effectively incorporates real-world user feedback to continuously improve these widely used standardized cancer reporting tools, supporting their ongoing accuracy, usability, and interoperability, which is important for maintaining consistent, high-quality cancer pathology reporting across the many institutions that rely on these protocols.
Who should care
Limitations
This is a descriptive analysis of one organization's internal quality management process over a 2-year period, so it reflects the performance of this specific system rather than a comparative evaluation against alternative approaches to maintaining standardized reporting tools.
A major pathology organization's stakeholder feedback system for updating its widely used standardized cancer reporting templates led to protocol updates in nearly a third of submitted inquiries, with most resolved within a week, demonstrating an effective, responsive approach to keeping these important clinical tools current.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Context.—
The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Cancer Protocols are standardized pathology reporting tools that support accurate, complete, and interoperable cancer diagnoses. Available in electronic, downloadable, and mobile formats, they are used by more than 9500 licensed users. CAP has developed a quality management system specifically for the cancer protocols with a focus on stakeholder feedback. It also maintains alignment with multiple international regulatory standards, enabling compliance with accreditation requirements.
Objective.—
To describe the process for tracking, triaging, and resolving inquiries to increase transparency of the creation and maintenance of the CAP protocols. This process ensures that stakeholder feedback is fully considered and systematically incorporated into protocol updates.
Design.—
Inquiries submitted in 2023-2024 were logged into 2 databases for triage within a customized task management system. For each inquiry, data were captured on volume, source, submission platform, protocol group, issue type, and resolution time.
Results.—
Of 507 inquiries, 156 (31%) resulted in protocol updates. Despite 278 inquiries (55%) requiring committee input, 446 (88%) were resolved within 7 days. Most inquiries involved content (283; 56%), and technical issues were minimal (61; 12%). Submission via the preferred route (cancerprotocols@cap.org) was used for 395 inquiries (78%). Breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and gynecologic protocols generated the most inquiries.
Conclusions.—
Stakeholder input is used in a quality management system to create and maintain the CAP Cancer Protocols. Use of this system ensures the ongoing accuracy, usability, and interoperability of the CAP Cancer Protocols, supporting precision oncology and excellence in patient care.
DOI
10.5858/arpa.2025-0524-cp
PMID
42547076
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed