ecancermedicalscience

Review

Quality indicators of pathology and laboratory medicine in cancer: a narrative synthesis of published literature

6 Oct 2026
Chase Peng Yun Ng, Asmita Raja, Alicia Hunter, Sai Kalpitha Eragamreddy, Grace Tan, Shahin Sayed, Looi Lai-Meng, Leke Folaranmi, Beatriz Hornburg, Meritxell Mallafre-Larrosa, Julie Torode, Ajay Aggarwal, Kenneth Fleming, Richard Sullivan

Purpose: With the rise in global cancer incidence, inadequate access to pathology and laboratory medicine (PALM) is one of the largest gaps in the cascade of cancer care, especially in low- and lower-middle-income countries. Quality indicators (QIs) are essential to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, timeliness and cost-effectiveness of PALM services to ensure access and quality. To identify strengths and gaps, this review systematically identifies and synthesises published PALM-specific cancer QIs across cancer types and geography.

Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a search of PubMed inclusive of Medline between 1990 and 2024 was conducted for studies that developed, applied or evaluated QIs for anatomical and molecular cancer pathology. Studies limited to chemopathology, immunopathology, haematopathology, haemato-oncology and paediatric oncology were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool.

Results: Of 8,685 records screened, 40 (0.5%) studies were included; 24 (61.5%) had moderate risk of bias. Nearly all the studies (97.5%) originated from high- or upper-middle-income countries, predominantly Europe and North America. Gynaecological and breast cancers were most frequently studied (n = 12 and 10), while prostate and lung cancers were underrepresented (n = 4 and 1, respectively). Most QIs focussed on diagnostic accuracy in the analytic phase (n = 26). Very few QIs assessed timeliness or cost-effectiveness (n = 2 and 3), particularly in pre-analytic and post-analytic phases.

Conclusion: Evidence for PALM-specific cancer QIs for timeliness and cost-effectiveness, in pre- and post-analytic phases, and across resource-limited settings is deficient. To facilitate global harmonisation, stakeholders from all resource settings should review international guidance to standardise QIs that are feasible, applicable and stratified to resource level. At the national level, Delphi processes are recommended to develop context-specific QIs, which inform national diagnostic strategy and cancer control planning.

Related Articles

Elizabeth Hatzaw, Jane Ralte, Vignesh Krishnasamy, Lalengkimi Ralte, Rajendra Bose Muthukumaran, Kasi Marimuthu, Nachimuthu Senthil Kumar
Ryan R. Lion, Glenn Mbah, Nathalie De Sousa Santos, Anne Gagnepain-Lacheteau, Karim Assani, Aissata Barry, Viviane Bissyande, Chantal Bouda, Aleine Budiongo, Isaac Bahati Chuma, Line Couitchéré, Fatou Binetou Diagne Akondé, Mame Ndella Diouf, Aimée Kissou, Robert Lukamba Mbuli, Boubacar Togo, Kan Paulin Yao, Yao Atteby Jean Jacques, Lea Zaho, Ekhtelbenina Zein, Isatou Bah Madison, Laila Hessissen
Victor Acosta Marín, Fernando Petracci, Denis U Landaverde, William Mantilla, Cynthia Villarreal, Guianeya Santander, Agatha Reyes, Joel Moreno, Ahmad Wali Mushtaq, Brizio Moreno, Juan Carlos Samamé
Prasanth Srinivasan, Gargi Das, Balaji Thiruvengadam Kothandan, Gautam Vydia Vedagiri, Anand Raja, Venkatraman Radhakrishnan
M P Arun Krishnan, R Nandini Devi, Praveen Kumar Shenoy, Shoaib Nawaz, Abhilash Menon, Anu Mathew