Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Management and Key Performance Indicators in Oncologic Esophageal Surgery

  • Review
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ranking systems and comparisons of quality and performance indicators will be of increasing relevance for complex “high-risk” procedures such as esophageal cancer surgery. The identification of evidence-based standards relevant for key performance indicators in esophageal surgery is essential for establishing monitoring systems and furthermore a requirement to enhance treatment quality. In the course of this review, we analyze the key performance indicators case volume, radicality of resection, and postoperative morbidity and mortality, leading to continuous quality improvement. Ranking systems established on this basis will gain increased relevance in highly complex procedures within the national and international comparison and furthermore improve the treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. R0: microscopic tumor-free resection margin, R1: microscopic positive resection margin, R2: macroscopic positive resection margin.

References

  1. Brown LM, Devesa SS, Chow WH. Incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus among white Americans by sex, stage, and age. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1184–1187. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn211.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–2084. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1112088.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. von Zglinicki T. Oxidative stress shortens telomeres. Trends Biochem Sci. 2002;27:339–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldstone J. The role of quality assurance versus continuous quality improvement. J Vasc Surg. 1998;28:378–380.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammermeister KE, Johnson R, Marshall G, Grover FL. Continuous assessment and improvement in quality of care. A model from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cardiac Surgery. Ann Surg. 1994;219:281–290.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sihvo EI, Salminen JT, Rantanen TK, et al. Oxidative stress has a role in malignant transformation in Barrett’s oesophagus. Int J Cancer. 2002;102:551–555. doi:10.1002/ijc.10755.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128–1137. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa012337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2117–2127. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa035205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2128–2137. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1010705.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Low DE. Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000–2011. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1055–1063. doi:10.1007/s11605-011-1731-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wouters MW, Gooiker GA, van Sandick JW, Tollenaar RA. The volume-outcome relation in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer. 2012;118:1754–1763. doi:10.1002/cncr.26383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wouters MW, Wijnhoven BP, Karim-Kos HE, et al. High-volume versus low-volume for esophageal resections for cancer: the essential role of case-mix adjustments based on clinical data. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:80–87. doi:10.1245/s10434-007-9673-4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coupland VH, Lagergren J, Luchtenborg M, et al. Hospital volume, proportion resected and mortality from oesophageal and gastric cancer: a population-based study in England, 2004–2008. Gut. 2013;62:961–966. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wouters MW, Karim-Kos HE, le Cessie S, et al. Centralization of esophageal cancer surgery: does it improve clinical outcome? Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1789–1798. doi:10.1245/s10434-009-0458-9.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery. Med Care. 2011;49:1076–1081. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182329b97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dikken JL, van Sandick JW, Allum WH, et al. Differences in outcomes of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery across Europe. Br J Surg. 2013;100:83–94. doi:10.1002/bjs.8966.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Metzger R, Bollschweiler E, Vallbohmer D, Maish M, DeMeester TR, Holscher AH. High volume centers for esophagectomy: what is the number needed to achieve low postoperative mortality? Dis Esophagus. 2004;17:310–314. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2050.2004.00431.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dikken JL, Wouters MW, Lemmens VE, et al. Influence of hospital type on outcomes after oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2012;99:954–963. doi:10.1002/bjs.8787.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr, Colletti LM, Upchurch GR Jr. Hospital teaching status and outcomes of complex surgical procedures in the United States. Arch Surg. 2004;139:137–141. doi:10.1001/archsurg.139.2.137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, Salber P, Buck CR Jr. Improving the safety of health care: the leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313–316.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pandeya N, Williams G, Green AC, Webb PM, Whiteman DC. Alcohol consumption and the risks of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:1215e1-2–1224e1-2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135:569–575. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2004.03.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jenkins GJ, Cronin J, Alhamdani A, et al. The bile acid deoxycholic acid has a non-linear dose response for DNA damage and possibly NF-kappaB activation in oesophageal cells, with a mechanism of action involving ROS. Mutagenesis. 2008;23:399–405. doi:10.1093/mutage/gen029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Courrech Staal EF, Wouters MW, Boot H, Tollenaar RA, Sandick JW. Quality-of-care indicators for oesophageal cancer surgery: a review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:1035–1043. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.08.131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Urbach DR, Austin PC. Conventional models overestimate the statistical significance of volume-outcome associations, compared with multilevel models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:391–400. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. LaPar DJ, Kron IL, Jones DR, Stukenborg GJ, Kozower BD. Hospital procedure volume should not be used as a measure of surgical quality. Ann Surg. 2012;256:606–615. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826b4be6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Osborne NH, Ghaferi AA, Nicholas LH, Dimick JB, Mph M. Evaluating popular media and internet-based hospital quality ratings for cancer surgery. Arch Surg. 2011;146:600–604. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2011.119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wouters MW, Krijnen P, Le Cessie S, et al. Volume- or outcome-based referral to improve quality of care for esophageal cancer surgery in The Netherlands. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:481–487. doi:10.1002/jso.21191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dexter SP, Sue-Ling H, McMahon MJ, Quirke P, Mapstone N, Martin IG. Circumferential resection margin involvement: an independent predictor of survival following surgery for oesophageal cancer. Gut. 2001;48:667–670.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Griffiths EA, Brummell Z, Gorthi G, Pritchard SA, Welch IM. The prognostic value of circumferential resection margin involvement in oesophageal malignancy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32:413–419. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2005.11.024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Khan OA, Fitzgerald JJ, Soomro I, Beggs FD, Morgan WE, Duffy JP. Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin involvement following oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1549–1552. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600931.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Law S, Arcilla C, Chu KM, Wong J. The significance of histologically infiltrated resection margin after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Am J Surg. 1998;176:286–290.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sagar PM, Johnston D, McMahon MJ, Dixon MF, Quirke P. Significance of circumferential resection margin involvement after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 1993;80:1386–1388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Scheepers JJ, van der Peet DL, Veenhof AA, Cuesta MA. Influence of circumferential resection margin on prognosis in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer approached through the transhiatal route. Dis Esophagus. 2009;22:42–48. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2050.2008.00898.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sujendran V, Wheeler J, Baron R, Warren BF, Maynard N. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on circumferential margin positivity and its impact on prognosis in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2008;95:191–194. doi:10.1002/bjs.5983.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wijnhoven BP, Tran KT, Esterman A, Watson DI, Tilanus HW. An evaluation of prognostic factors and tumor staging of resected carcinoma of the esophagus. Ann Surg. 2007;245:717–725. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000251703.35919.02.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Altorki NK, Zhou XK, Stiles B, et al. Total number of resected lymph nodes predicts survival in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248:221–226. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817bbe59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gockel I, Sgourakis G, Lyros O, Hansen T, Lang H. Dissection of lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11:571–578. doi:10.1586/era.10.157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Peyre CG, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR, et al. The number of lymph nodes removed predicts survival in esophageal cancer: an international study on the impact of extent of surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2008;248:549–556. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318188c474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schwarz RE, Smith DD. Clinical impact of lymphadenectomy extent in resectable esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1384–1393; discussion 93–94. doi:10.1007/s11605-007-0264-2.

  41. Courrech Staal EF, Aleman BM, Boot H, van Velthuysen ML, van Tinteren H, van Sandick JW. Systematic review of the benefits and risks of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1482–1496. doi:10.1002/bjs.7175.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Siewert JR, Stein HJ. Lymph-node dissection in squamous cell esophageal cancer—who benefits? Langenbecks Arch Surg. 1999;384:141–148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Siewert JR, Stein HJ, Bottcher K. Lymphadenectomy in tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Chirurg. 1996;67:877–888.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bollschweiler E, Besch S, Drebber U, et al. Influence of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on the number and size of analyzed lymph nodes in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3187–3194. doi:10.1245/s10434-010-1196-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Nishihira T, Hirayama K, Mori S. A prospective randomized trial of extended cervical and superior mediastinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus. Am J Surg. 1998;175:47–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lagarde SM, Vrouenraets BC, Stassen LP, van Lanschot JJ. Evidence-based surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: overview of high-quality studies. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1319–1326. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.09.062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256:95–103. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182590603.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Dantoc M, Cox MR, Eslick GD. Evidence to support the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147:768–776. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2012.1326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1887–1892. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60516-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bolger C, Walsh TN, Tanner WA, Keeling P, Hennessy TP. Chylothorax after oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 1991;78:587–588.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dimick JB, Pronovost PJ, Cowan JA, Lipsett PA. Complications and costs after high-risk surgery: where should we focus quality improvement initiatives? J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:671–678. doi:10.1016/s1072-7515(03)00122-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ferri LE, Law S, Wong KH, Kwok KF, Wong J. The influence of technical complications on postoperative outcome and survival after esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:557–564. doi:10.1245/aso.2006.04.040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hirai T, Yamashita Y, Mukaida H, Kuwahara M, Inoue H, Toge T. Poor prognosis in esophageal cancer patients with postoperative complications. Surg Today. 1998;28:576–579.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kinugasa S, Tachibana M, Yoshimura H, et al. Postoperative pulmonary complications are associated with worse short- and long-term outcomes after extended esophagectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2004;88:71–77. doi:10.1002/jso.20137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lagarde SM, de Boer JD, ten Kate FJ, Busch OR, Obertop H, van Lanschot JJ. Postoperative complications after esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus are related to timing of death due to recurrence. Ann Surg. 2008;247:71–76. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31815b695e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lagarde SM, Omloo JM, de Jong K, Busch OR, Obertop H, van Lanschot JJ. Incidence and management of chyle leakage after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80:449–454. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.02.076.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, et al. The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:42–50. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.08.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Whooley BP, Law S, Murthy SC, Alexandrou A, Wong J. Analysis of reduced death and complication rates after esophageal resection. Ann Surg. 2001;233:338–344.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sgourakis G, Gockel I, Radtke A, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:3031–3040. doi:10.1007/s10620-010-1153-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Blencowe NS, Strong S, McNair AG, et al. Reporting of short-term clinical outcomes after esophagectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255:658–666. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182480a6a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee TJ, Martin RC 2nd. Surgical quality of care in esophageal malignancies. Future Oncol. 2013;9:575–584. doi:10.2217/fon.13.18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Veeramootoo D, Parameswaran R, Krishnadas R, et al. Classification and early recognition of gastric conduit failure after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2110–2116. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0233-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Dimick JB, Welch HG, Birkmeyer JD. Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA. 2004;292:847–851. doi:10.1001/jama.292.7.847.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:690–694. doi:10.1056/nejm197809282991304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. van Gijn W, Wouters MW, Peeters KC, van de Velde CJ. Nationwide outcome registrations to improve quality of care in rectal surgery. An initiative of the European Society of Surgical Oncology. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:491–496. doi:10.1002/jso.21203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Trayhurn P, Wood IS. Adipokines: inflammation and the pleiotropic role of white adipose tissue. Br J Nutr. 2004;92:347–355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Collins GS, Jibawi A, McCulloch P. Control chart methods for monitoring surgical performance: a case study from gastro-oesophageal surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:473–480. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Harry M, Schroeder R. Six Sigma. Prozesse optimieren, Null-Fehler-Qualität schaffen, Rendite radikal steigern. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag; 2000.

  69. Low DE. Evolution in surgical management of esophageal cancer. Dig Dis. 2013;31:21–29. doi:10.1159/000343650.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Iannettoni MD, Lynch WR, Parekh KR, McLaughlin KA. Kaizen method for esophagectomy patients: improved quality control, outcomes, and decreased costs. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1011–1017; discussion 7–8. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.01.001.

  71. Schwarzbach M, Ronellenfitsch U. Klinikpfade in der Chirurgie: Ein Instrument für den Routinebetrieb? Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008;105:2512.

  72. Low DE, Kunz S, Schembre D, et al. Esophagectomy—it’s not just about mortality anymore: standardized perioperative clinical pathways improve outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1395–1402; discussion 402. doi:10.1007/s11605-007-0265-1.

  73. Munitiz V, Martinez-de-Haro LF, Ortiz A, Ruiz-de-Angulo D, Pastor P, Parrilla P. Effectiveness of a written clinical pathway for enhanced recovery after transthoracic (Ivor Lewis) oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2010;97:714–718. doi:10.1002/bjs.6942.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Preston SR, Markar SR, Baker CR, Soon Y, Singh S, Low DE. Impact of a multidisciplinary standardized clinical pathway on perioperative outcomes in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:105–112. doi:10.1002/bjs.8974.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Zehr KJ, Dawson PB, Yang SC, Heitmiller RF. Standardized clinical care pathways for major thoracic cases reduce hospital costs. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:914–919.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Li C, Ferri LE, Mulder DS, et al. An enhanced recovery pathway decreases duration of stay after esophagectomy. Surgery. 2012;152:606–614; discussion 14–16. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2012.07.021.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Ines Gockel

  2. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Ines Gockel, Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand, Michael Arras & Hauke Lang

  3. Institute of Quality Management, University Medical Center of Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Elke Maria Schreiber

  4. 1st Department of Medicine, Medical Center of Worms, Worms, Germany

    Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand

Authors
  1. Ines Gockel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Arras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elke Maria Schreiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hauke Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gockel, I., Ahlbrand, C.J., Arras, M. et al. Quality Management and Key Performance Indicators in Oncologic Esophageal Surgery. Dig Dis Sci 60, 3536–3544 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-015-3790-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-015-3790-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation