Operative Standards Toolkit

Surgical Trainees' Knowledge of the CoC Operative Standards

Information on Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery Manuals (Webpage)

Introduction to the Operative Standards (Video - 6 minutes)

CoC Operative Standards Videos from the CSSP (YouTube Playlist)

CoC Operative Standards Updates and Communications (Webpage)

CoC Operative Standards Overview (PDF)

ACS Cancer Surgery Standards Program (August 2021- Behind the Knife podcast - 29 minutes)

2020 CoC Operative Standards: Where are we now? (Bulletin article from January 8, 2021)

Announcing the new Cancer Surgery Standards Program (Bulletin article from July 21, 2020)

Meeting the 2020 Standards for Optimal Cancer Care: Standards 5.3-5.8 (Webinar from July 8, 2020 - 53 minutes)

ACS Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery – Why we need them and how to put them into practice (SurgOnc Today® podcast - 17 minutes

New Program Translates Cancer Research to the Frontlines of Care - Heidi Nelson, MD, FACS (Article & Video - 5 minutes)

Accelerating Innovation from Research to Bedside - Matthew H.G. Katz, MD, FACS (Article & Video - 4 minutes)

Operative Standards Mean Better Care for All Cancer Patients - Kelly K. Hunt, MD, FACS (Article & Video - 4 minutes)

When We Know Better, We Must Do Better - David B. Hoyt, MD, FACS (Article & Video - 16 minutes)

Site Reviewer Perspectives

2023 Site Visit Preparation Webinar (recorded October 4, 2022) - 60 minutes (recording)

• Download slides (PDF)
• Webinar Summary Document (PDF)

Ratings and Compliance Information for the CoC Operative Standards (Webpage)

Overview of Compliance Requirements & Site Visit Process for CoC Operative Standards (PDF)

Visual Abstract of Compliance Requirements & Site Visit Process (PDF)

Recommendations for Self-Auditing CoC Standards 5.3 - 5.8 (PDF)

Letter to Surgeons with Documentation Requirements for the CoC Operative Standards (PDF)

Guidelines for Implementation Plan for Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standards 5.3–5.6 (PDF)

Best Practices for CoC Operative Standards 5.3-5.6: A Webinar for ODS-Certified Professionals (recorded July 17, 2024 – 60 minutes) (Recording)

• Download Slides (PDF)
• FAQ and Audience Best Practices Summary (PDF)
• CoC Operative Operative Standards Manual Tracking Form (XLSX)

CoC Operative Standards Self Audit Tool Webinar (recorded February 23, 2026 - 56 Minutes)

• Download Slides (PDF)
• Q&A Summary (XLSX)

Implementing Synoptic Requirements for CoC Operative Standards 5.3-5.6 (webinar recording from November 3, 2022, 60 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary Document (PDF)
• Webinar Questions Document (PDF)

Guidelines for Implementation Plan for Standards 5.3-5.6 (PDF)

Synoptic vs. Narrative Operative Reports for the CoC Standards (Video - 5 minutes)

Synoptic Operative Reporting Roadmap from the CSSP (Video - 3 minutes)

Visual Abstract of Synoptic Operative Reporting Information for Standards 5.3–5.6 (PDF)

Implementation of CoC Operative Standards (Webinar recording from March 28, 2022 - 60 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Implementation Strategies for Synoptic Operative Reporting (Webinar recording from March 23, 2021 - 61 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Quick Reference Guide – Standards 5.3–5.6 Synoptic Operative Reporting Requirements (PDF)

Commercial Options for Synoptic Operative Reporting (Webpage)

Guidelines for Oncology Data Specialists to identify eligible cases for Standard 5.3 (PDF)

CSSP Webinar on CoC Standards 5.3 & 5.4 for Breast Cancer (Webinar recording from November 17, 2021 - 57 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Relevant pages from the Breast chapter in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, Volume 1 (PDF)

Visual abstract of standard requirements and compliance information (PDF)

CoC Standard 5.3: Requirements & Best Practices (Video - 8min)

Editorial on CoC Standards 5.3 and 5.4 in Surgery

Standard 5.3 Internal Audit Flowchart

Guidelines for Oncology Data Specialists to identify eligible cases for Standard 5.4 (PDF)

CSSP Webinar on CoC Standards 5.3 & 5.4 for Breast Cancer (Webinar recording from November 17, 2021 - 57 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Relevant pages from the Breast chapter in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, Volume 1 (PDF)

Visual abstract of standard requirements and compliance information (PDF)

CoC Standard 5.4: Requirements & Best Practices (Video - 8min)

Editorial on CoC Standards 5.3 and 5.4 in Surgery

Standard 5.4 Internal Audit Flowchart

Evaluation Variation in Lymph Node Sampling During SLNB for Melanoma

CSSP Webinar on CoC Standard 5.5 for Melanoma (Webinar recording from March 3, 2022 - 45 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

CoC Standard 5.5: Requirements & Best Practices (Video - 9min)

Guidelines for Oncology Data Specialists to identify eligible cases for Standard 5.5 (PDF)

Relevant pages from the Melanoma chapter in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, Volume 2 (PDF)

Visual abstract of standard requirements and compliance information (PDF)

Editorial on CoC Standard 5.5 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Standard 5.5 Internal Audit Flowchart

CoC Standard 5.6: Requirements & Best Practices (video - 8min)

Visual abstract of standard requirements and compliance information (PDF)

Guidelines for Oncology Data Specialists to identify eligible cases for Standard 5.6 (PDF)

Relevant pages from the Colon chapter in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, Volume 1 (PDF)

CSSP Webinar on CoC Standard 5.6 for Colon Resection (Webinar recording from August 25, 2022 - 45 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Editorial on CoC Standard 5.6 in Annals of Surgical Oncology

Standard 5.6 Internal Audit Flowchart

Editorial on CoC Standard 5.7 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Standard 5.7 Flowchart to Assess Compliance (PDF)

CoC Standard 5.7: Requirements & Best Practices (Video - 8 minutes)

Visual abstract of standard requirements and compliance information (PDF)

Guidelines for Oncology Data Specialists to identify eligible cases for Standard 5.7 (PDF)

Introducing the New Commission on Cancer Rectal Cancer Surgical Standard (SurgOnc Today® podcast - 20 minutes)

CSSP Webinar on CoC Standard 5.7 (Webinar recording from December 7, 2020 - 46 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Best Practices for Compliance with CoC Standards 5.7 & 5.8 (Webinar recording from June 3, 2021 - 60 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

2022 Site Visit Preparation for CoC Standards 5.7 & 5.8 (Webinar recording from August 30, 2021 - 60 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Relevant pages from the Rectum chapter in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, Volume 2 (PDF)

CoC Standard 5.7 Informational Flyer (PDF)

Early Compliance with Standard 5.8 on Lymph Node Staging for Lung Cancer

Perspectives on Commission on Cancer Standard 5.8 on Lung Cancer: A Qualitative Study

CoC Standard 5.8: Pulmonary Resection - Evidence Behind the Standard

Left-Side Cancer Lung Resection (Video- 14 mins)

Right-Side Cancer Lung Resection (Video- 12 mins)

Editorial on CoC Standard 5.8 in Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Standard 5.8 Flowchart to Assess Compliance (PDF)

Understanding the Evidence Behind CoC Standard 5.8 on Pulmonary Resection (Webinar recording from October 31st, 2024 - 55 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)

Society of Thoracic Surgeons Webinar on CoC Standard 5.8 (Webinar recording from April 28, 2022)

CoC Standard 5.8: Requirements & Best Practices (Video - 9 minutes)

Visual abstract of standard requirements and compliance information (PDF)

Guidelines for Oncology Data Specialists to identify eligible cases for Standard 5.8 (PDF)

Best Practices to Meet the Standard for Nodal Assessment During a Curative Operation (SurgOnc Today® podcast - 40 minutes)

CSSP Webinar on CoC Standard 5.8 (Webinar recording from December 15, 2020 - 53 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Best Practices for Compliance with CoC Standards 5.7 & 5.8 (Webinar recording from June 3, 2021 - 60 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

2022 Site Visit Preparation for CoC Standards 5.7 & 5.8 (Webinar recording from August 30, 2021 - 60 minutes)

• Slides (PDF)
• Summary and FAQs (PDF)

Relevant pages from the Lung chapter in Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, Volume 1 (PDF)

CoC Standard 5.8 Informational Flyer (PDF)

CoC Operative Standards and the Cancer Surgery Standard Program 

• Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery, Volumes 1 & 2 & 3
• Katz MHG, Francescatti AB, Hunt KK. Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Commission on Cancer Standards 5.3-5.8. Ann Surg Oncology. 2022; 29: p 6549-6558.

CoC Accreditation, Compliance, and Site Review Process 

• American College of Surgeons. Optimal Resources for Cancer Care (2020 Standards).

Standard 5.3 Sentinel Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer

• Zhao B, Tsai C, Hunt KK, Blair SL. Adherence to surgical and oncologic standards improves survival in breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol. 2019;120(2): p 148-159.
• Sample JW, Hoskin TL, Johnson JE, Mrdutt MM, Piltin MA, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Hieken TJ. Early Compliance with Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Breast Cancer Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Feb;32(2):944-951. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-16477-1. Epub 2024 Nov 10. PMID: 39523295.
• Blair SL, Boughey JC. First steps into synoptic operative reporting in breast cancer surgery: A journey to improve quality cancer care. Surgery. 2023 Sep;174(3):715-716. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.04.005. Epub 2023 Jun 3. PMID: 37277309.
• Yi M, Giordano SH, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Trends in and outcomes from sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone vs. SLNB with axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer patients: experience from the SEER database. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(3): 343–351.
• Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Hansen NM, et al. Comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone and completion axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(18):2946–2953. 
• Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011;305(6):569–575.
• Fisher B, Jeong J-H, Anderson S, et al. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med 2002;347(8):567–575. 
• Rao R, Euhus D, Mayo HG, et al. Axillary node interventions in breast cancer: a systematic review. JAMA 2013;310(13):1385–1394.

Standard 5.4 Axillary Lymph Node Dissection for Breast Cancer

• Zhao B, Tsai C, Hunt KK, Blair SL. Adherence to surgical and oncologic standards improves survival in breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol. 2019;120(2): p 148-159.
• Sample JW, Hoskin TL, Johnson JE, Mrdutt MM, Piltin MA, Boughey JC, Degnim AC, Hieken TJ. Early Compliance with Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Breast Cancer Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Feb;32(2):944-951. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-16477-1. Epub 2024 Nov 10. PMID: 39523295.
• Blair SL, Boughey JC. First steps into synoptic operative reporting in breast cancer surgery: A journey to improve quality cancer care. Surgery. 2023 Sep;174(3):715-716. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.04.005. Epub 2023 Jun 3. PMID: 37277309.
• Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992;127(4):392–399.
• Clough KB, Nasr R, Nos C, et al. New anatomical classification of the axilla with implications for sentinel node biopsy. Br J Surg 2010;97(11):1659–1665. 
• Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11(10):927–933.
• Goyal A, Newcombe R, Mansel R. Clinical relevance of multiple sentinel nodes in patients with breast cancer. Brit J Surg 2005;92(4):438–442.
• Pesek S, Ashikaga T, Krag LE, et al. The false-negative rate of sentinel node biopsy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg 2012;36(9):2239–2251.
• Quan ML, Wells BJ, McCready D, et al.Beyond the false negative rate: development of quality indicators for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(2):579–591.
• Cody HS III. Clinical aspects of sentinel node biopsy. Breast Cancer Res 2001;3:104–108.

Standard 5.5 Wide Local Excision for Primary Cutaneous Melanoma

• Lillemoe HA, Williams JK, Teshome MK, Zheng L, Francescatti AB, Hieken TJ, Katz, MHG, Hunt, KK, Vreeland, TJ, Asare, EA. Setting the Standard for Cutaneous Melanoma Wide Local Excision: An Overview of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.5. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2023; 236(2): p 424-428.
• Office of Disease Prevention. Diagnosis and treatment of early melanoma. National Institutes of Health Web site. Accessed May 17, 2018.
• Kunishige JH, Brodland DG, Zitelli JA. Surgical margins for melanoma in situ. J Am Acad Dermatol 2012;66:438–444.
• Veronesi U, Cascinelli N. Narrow excision (1-cm margin). A safe procedure for thin cutaneous melanoma. Arch Surg 1991;126:438–441.
• Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Adamus J, et al. Thin stage I primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Comparison of excision with margins of 1 or 3 cm. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1159–1162.
• Cohn-Cedermark G, Rutqvist LE, Andersson R, et al. Long term results of a randomized study by the Swedish Melanoma Study Group on 2-cm versus 5-cm resection margins for patients with cutaneous melanoma with a tumor thickness of 0.8-2.0 mm. Cancer 2000;89:1495–1501.
• Khayat D, Rixe O, Martin G, et al. Surgical margins in cutaneous melanoma (2 cm versus 5 cm for lesions measuring less than 2.1-mm thick). Cancer 2003;97:1941–1946.
• Doepker MP, Thompson ZJ, Fisher KJ, et al. Is a Wider Margin (2 cm vs. 1 cm) for a 1.01-2.0 mm Melanoma Necessary? Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23:2336–2342.
• Balch CM, Soong S, Ross MI, et al. Long-term results of a multi-institutional randomized trial comparing prognostic factors and surgical results for intermediate thickness melanomas (1.0 to 4.0 mm). Intergroup Melanoma Surgical Trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2000;7:87–97.
• Karakousis CP, Balch CM, Urist MM, et al. Local recurrence in malignant melanoma: long-term results of the multiinstitutional randomized surgical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 1996;3:446–452. 
• Thomas JM, Newton-Bishop J, A’Hern R, et al. Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma. N Engl J Med 2004;350:757–766.
• Hayes AJ, Maynard L, Coombes G, et al. Wide versus narrow excision margins for high-risk, primary cutaneous melanomas: long-term follow-up of survival in a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:184–192.
• Nguyen JT, Bakri K, Nguyen EC, et al. Surgical management of subungual melanoma: mayo clinic experience of 124 cases. Ann Plast Surg 2013;71:346–354.
• Kenady DE, Brown BW, McBride CM. Excision of underlying fascia with a primary malignant melanoma: effect on recurrence and survival rates. Surgery 1982;92:615–618.

Standard 5.6 Colon Resection

• West NP, Hohenberger W, Weber K, et al. Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation produces an oncologically superior specimen compared with standard surgery for carcinoma of the colon. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(2):272–278.
• Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, et al. Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation—technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis 2009;11(4):354–364.

Standard 5.7 Total Mesorectal Excision

• Adams AM, Vreeland TJ, Teshome, M, Francescatti, AB, Zheng, L, Hunt, KK, Katz, MHG, Messick, CA. American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.7 for Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid-to-Low Rectal Cancer. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2022; 234(6): p 1249-1253.
• Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, et al. Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet 2000;356:93–96.
• Kapiteijn E, Putter H, van de Velde CJ. Impact of the introduction and training of total mesorectal excision on recurrence and survival in rectal cancer in The Netherlands. Br J Surg 2002;89:1142–1149.
• Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, et al. Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1729–1734.
• Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomized clinical trial. Lancet 2009;373:821–828.

Standard 5.8 Pulmonary Resection

• CoC Standard 5.8: Pulmonary Resection - Evidence Behind the Standard
• Nissen A, Vreeland TJ, Teshome M, Archer MA, Francescatti AB, Katz MHG, Hunt KK, Zheng L, Mullett TW. American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard for Curative-intent Pulmonary Resection. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2022; 113(1): p 5-8.
• Heiden BT, Eaton DB Jr, Chang SH, et al. Assessment of Updated Commission on Cancer Guidelines for Intraoperative Lymph Node Sampling in Early Stage NSCL. J Thorac Oncol. 2022; 17(11): p 1287-1296.
• Ray MA, Akinbobola O, Fehnel C, Saulsberry A, Dortch K, Wolf B, Valaulikar G, Patel HD, Ng T, Robbins T, Smeltzer MP, Faris NR, Osarogiagbon RU. Surgeon Quality and Patient Survival After Resection for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2023; 41(20): p 3616-3638. 
• Asamura, H. Staging Manual in Thoracic Oncology, Third Edition. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2024.
• Archer, MA, Martin, LW. Lymph Node Assessment in Lung Cancer—New Practice Standards. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2023; 115(1): p 173-174.
• Baskin AS, Funk EC, Francescatti AB, Sinco BR, Palis BE, Hieken TJ, Katz MHG, Boughey JC, Weigel RJ, Dossett LA, Boffa DJ. Early Compliance with Lung Cancer Lymph Node Standard 5.8: An Analysis of 2022 and 2023 Commission on Cancer Site Reviews. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2025.
• Darling GE, Allen MS, Decker PA, et al. Randomized trial of mediastinal lymph node sampling versus complete lymphadenectomy during pulmonary resection in the patient with N0 or N1 (less than hilar) non-small cell carcinoma: Results of the American College of Surgery Oncology Group Z0030 Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141(3):662-670.
• De Leyn P, Dooms C, Kuzdzal J et al. Revised ESTS guidelines for preoperative mediastinal lymph node staging for nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45(5): 787-98.
• Krantz SB, Lufti W, Kuchta K, et al. Improved lymph node staging in early-stage lung cancer in the National Cancer Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104(6):1805-1814.
• Osarogiagbon RU, Sareen S, Eke R et al. Audit of lymphadenectomy in lung cancer resections using a specimen collection kit and checklist. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(2): 421-427.
• Samayoa AX, Pezzi TA, Pezzi CM, et al. Rationale for a minimum number of lymph nodes removed with non-small cell lung cancer resection: Correlating the number of nodes removed with survival in 98,970 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(suppl 5):1005-1011.
• Smeltzer MP, Faris NR, Ray MA, Osarogiagbon RU. Association of pathologic nodal staging quality with survival among patients with non-small cell lung cancer after resection with curative intent. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(1):80-87.
  Other Site-Specific Publications 
• Spitzer HV, Bohan PMK, Carpenter EL, Adams AM, Chang SC, Grunkemeier G, Vreeland TJ, Tzeng CWD, Katz MHG, Nelson DW. Impact of Adherence to Operative Standards and Stage-Specific Guideline-Recommended Therapy in Nonmetastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2023; [Online ahead of print.]
• Zhao B, Blair SL, Katz MHG, Lowy AM, Kelly KJ. Adherence with operative standards in the treatment of gastric cancer in the United States. Gastric Cancer. 2020;23(3): p 550-560.
• Bell R, Francescatti A, Boffa D, et al. Surgical nodal sampling established by Commission on Cancer Standard 5.8 is essential for accurate lung cancer staging. JTCVS Open, 2026.

Synoptic Reporting

• Hieken TJ, Burns WR, Francescatti AB, Morris AM, Wong SL. Cancer Surgery Standards Program of the American College of Surgeons. Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Improving Patient Care through Synoptic Operative Reporting. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2022; 29: p 6526-6533.
• Carpenter EL, Adams AM, McCarthy PM, Chick RC, Spitzer HV, Nelson DW, Clifton GT, Bowen DK, Krell RW, Vreeland TJ. Meeting the New Commission on Cancer Operative Standards: Where Do We Stand Now? Military Medicine. 2022; 188(7-8): p 1558-1562.
• Lyu HG, Kantor O, Laws AD, McDonald J, Pham L, Dominici LS, Vincuilla J, Raut CP, Danilchuk B, Novak L, Parker T, King TA, Mittendorf EA. Development of an Electronic Health Record Registry to Facilitate Collection of Commission on Cancer Metrics for Patients Undergoing Surgery for Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022; 40(16): p 1549.
• Snoek JAA, Nagtegaal ID, Siesling S, Van Den Broek E, Van Slooten HJ, Hugen N. The Impact of Standardized Structured Reporting of Pathology Reports for Breast Cancer Care. Breast. 2022; 66: p 178-182.
• Bidwell SS, Merrell SB, Poles G, Morris AM; Synoptic Operative Report Study Group. Implementation of a Synoptic Operative Report for Rectal Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020; 63(2): p 190-199.
• Eryigit Ö, van de Graaf FW, Lange JF. A Systematic Review on the Synoptic Operative Report Versus the Narrative Operative Report in Surgery. World J Surg. 2019 Sep;43(9): p 2175-2185.
• Stogryn S, Hardy KM, Abou-Setta AM, Clouston KM, Metcalfe J, Vergis AS. Advancement in the quality of operative documentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of synoptic versus narrative operative reporting. Am J Surg. 2019 Sep;218(3): p 624-630.
• Sluijter CE, van Workum F, Wiggers T, van de Water C, Visser O, van Slooten HJ, Overbeek LIH, Nagtegaal ID. Improvement of Care in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Influence of the Introduction of Standardized Structured Reporting for Pathology. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 May; 3: p 1-12.
• Renshaw AA, Mena-Allauca M, Gould EW, Sirintrapun SJ. Synoptic Reporting: Evidence-Based Review and Future Directions. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018 Dec; 2: p 1-9.
• Stogryn SE, Hardy K, Mullan MJ, Park J, Andrew C, Vergis A. Synoptic operative reporting: assessing the completeness, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of synoptic reporting for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr; 32(4): p 1729-1739.
• Renshaw MA, Renshaw SA, Mena-Allauca M, et al. Performance of a Web-based Method for Generating Synoptic Reports. J Pathol Inform. 2017; 8: p 13.
• Ellis DW, Srigley J. Does standardized structured reporting contribute to quality in diagnostic pathology? The importance of evidence-based datasets. Virchows Arch. 2016;468(1): p 51-59.
• Sluijter CE, van Lonkhuijzen LR, van Slooten HJ, Nagtegaal ID, Overbeek LI. The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. Virchows Arch. 2016 Jun;468(6): p 639-49.
• Maniar RL, Sytnik P, Wirtzfeld DA, Hochman DJ, McKay AM, Yip B, Hebbard PC, Park J. Synoptic operative reports enhance documentation of best practices for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;112(5): p 555-60.
• Maniar RL, Hochman DJ, Wirtzfeld DA, McKay AM, Yaffe CS, Yip B, Silverman R, Park J. Documentation of quality of care data for colon cancer surgery: comparison of synoptic and dictated operative reports. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;21(11): p 3592-7.
• Casati B, Bjugn R. Structured electronic template for histopathology reporting on colorectal carcinoma resections: five-year follow-up shows sustainable long-term quality improvement. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(6): p 652-656.
• Donahoe L, Bennett S, Temple W, Hilchie-Pye A, Dabbs K, Macintosh E, Porter G. Completeness of dictated operative reports in breast cancer--the case for synoptic reporting. J Surg Oncol. 2012 Jul 1;106(1): p 79-83.
• Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R. What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011 Nov;135(11):147 p 1-5.
• Valenstein PN. Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(1): p 84-94.

• Sluijter CE, van Lonkhuijzen LR, van Slooten HJ, Nagtegaal ID, Overbeek LI. The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. Virchows Arch. 2016; 468(6):639-49. 

• Caro E. Sluijter et al. Improvement of Care in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Influence of the Introduction of Standardized Structured Reporting for Pathology. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 3. 2019; 1-12.
• John Srigley et al. Closing the Quality Loop: Facilitating Improvement in Oncology Practice Through Timely Access to Clinical Performance Indicators. JOP 9. 2013; e255-e26.

• Park KU, Padamsee TJ, Birken SA, et al. Factors Influencing Implementation of the Commission on Cancer's Breast Synoptic Operative Report (Alliance A20_Pilot9). Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Sep;31(9):5888-5895. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15515-2. Epub 2024 Jun 11. PMID: 38862840; PMCID: PMC11300652.

• Wang T, Welch HG, Dossett LA. Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery: Will Synoptic Reporting Really Improve Cancer Outcomes? Ann Surg Open. 2024 May 14;5(2):e440. doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000440. PMID: 38911662; PMCID: PMC11191936.

• Nikolic A, Tranter-Entwistle I, McCombie A, Connor S, Eglinton T. The utility of synoptic operation reports in colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2024 Apr 30;39(1):63. doi: 10.1007/s00384-024-04613-y. PMID: 38689196; PMCID: PMC11061035.

• Singh N, Chanco M, Wen V, Mishra N, Mangal S, Ghatage P. Synoptic Operative Reporting in Cervical Cancer Surgeries: Experience From a Single Oncology Center. Cureus. 2023 Dec 13;15(12):e50462. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50462. PMID: 38222142; PMCID: PMC10784760.

• Abdelhafeez AH, Morrison Z, Halepota HF, et al. Documentation of critical intraoperative oncologic findings: Synoptic versus narrative operative reports for childhood cancer surgery. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2024 Nov;71(11):e31269. doi: 10.1002/pbc.31269. Epub 2024 Aug 13. PMID: 39138619.

• Yan SL, Yang NT, Schaberg KB, Mao EJ. "Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus" Revisited: Synoptic Reports Improve Clinician Comprehension of Pathology Reports in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2024 Jul 1;148(7):852-856. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2023-0068-OA. PMID: 37787407.

• Bedel A, Blache G, Jauffret C, et al. A computer synoptic operative report versus a report dictated by a surgeon in advanced ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2024 Apr 1;34(4):581-585. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004947. PMID: 38336374.

• Watanabe A, Yao S, Prisman E, et al. Development and Validation of a Synoptic Operative Report as a Quality Indicator for Thyroid Surgery: A Canadian Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Feb 7. doi: 10.1245/s10434-025-16957-y. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 39918752.

• Ould Ismail AA, Kale S, McGonagle K, Hill B, Pettus JR, DuVall SL, Ferraro JP, Schroeck FR. Adherence to Synoptic Cancer Pathology Reporting Among Pathologists in the National Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2024 Nov 8. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2024-0229-OA. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 39514644.

• Williams JE, Jacobs RC, Savitch SL, Hollenbeck ME, Pratt J, Bylsma R, Mollberg N, Reddy RM, Lagisetty KH, Odell DD. Provider and procedural factors associated with guideline-concordant lymph node sampling in lung cancer resection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2025; [Online ahead of print]
• Abdelhafeez A, Loh A, Harison D, Ahmad A, Velasquez Herrera TB, Qureshi BM, Malik F, Renner L, Vujanic G, Parkes J, Galluzzo L, Nightingale M, Lucas JT Jr, Kambugu J, Cox S, Abib SCV, Lakhoo K. Tumor-Specific Critical Intraoperative Findings Influence Multidisciplinary Therapy. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2025 Sep 7:e32031.
• Gur D, Gur I, Recabaren JA. The Computerized Synoptic Operative Report A Novel Tool in Surgical Residency Education. JAMA Surgery. 2021; 147(1): p 71-74.