Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of Endoscopy Reports for Esophageal Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

Backgrounds and Aims

As treatment for esophageal cancer often involves a multidisciplinary approach, the initial endoscopic report is essential for communication between providers. Several guidelines have been established to standardize endoscopic reporting. This study evaluates the compliance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) reporting with the current national guidelines.

Methods

Combining the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines, 11 quality indicators (QIs) for EGD and 8 for EUS were identified. We evaluated initial EGD and EUS reports from our institution (Memorial Sloan Kettering [MSK]) and outside hospitals (OSHs) and calculated individual and overall quality measure scores. Scores between locations were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar’s test for paired data.

Results

In total, 115 initial EGD reports and 105 EUS reports were reviewed for patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer between 2014 and 2016. The median number of QIs reported for the initial EGD was 4 (IQR, 3–6)—only 34% of reports qualified as “good quality” (those with ≥ 6 QIs). None of the reports included all QIs. For patients who underwent EGD at both MSK and an OSH, 32% of reports from OSHs were good quality, compared with 68% from MSK (p < 0.001). Compliance with QIs was better for EUS reports: 71% of OSH reports and 72% of MSK reports were good quality.

Conclusions

Detailed information on the initial endoscopic assessment is essential in today’s age of multidisciplinary care. Identification and adoption of QIs for endoscopic reporting is warranted to ensure the provision of appropriate treatment.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Varghese, Thomas K., et al. The society of thoracic surgeons guidelines on the diagnosis and staging of patients with esophageal cancer. The Annals of thoracic surgery 96.1 (2013): 346–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ning, Bo, Mohamed M. Abdelfatah, and Mohamed O. Othman. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early stage esophageal cancer. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery 6.2 (2017): 88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Han, Samuel, and Sachin Wani. Quality Indicators in Endoscopic Ablation for Barrett’s Esophagus. Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology (2017)15:1–15.

  4. Swanson, S. J., and P. Linden. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minerva chirurgica 57.6 (2002): 795–810.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Urschel, John D., and Hari Vasan. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery to surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer. The American Journal of Surgery 185.6 (2003): 538–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN Guidelines). Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers (Version 1.2017). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/esophageal.pdf. Accessed April 2017.

  7. Thomas W. Rice, MD, Eugene H. Blackstone, MD, and Valerie W. Rusch, MD. 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction. Ann Surg Oncol (2010)17:1721–1724.

  8. Ravindran, Nikila C., et al. Location, size, and distance: criteria for quality in esophagogastroduodenos copy reporting for pre-operative gastric cancer evaluation. Surgical endoscopy 28.5 (2014): 1660–1667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharma, Prateek, et al. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology 131.5 (2006): 1392–1399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Granger, Victoire, et al. Initial endoscopic description of esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Gastroentérologie clinique et biologique 30.12 (2006): 1365–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rutter MD, Senore C et al. The European society of Gastrointestinal endoscopy quality improvement initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016;48(1):81–9

  12. Park WG, Shaheen NJ et al. Quality indicators for EGD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):17–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rutter MD, Rees CJ. Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014 Jun;46(6):526–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. De Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J et al. Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(1):98–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lieberman DA, Faigel DO et al. Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 2):645–5315.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Li J, Nadel MR et al. Quality assessment of colonoscopy reporting: result from a statewide cancer screening program. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2010; 2010: 419796.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gorlot, Ingrid, et al. Evaluation of endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus based on analysis of 346 reports. Gastroenterologie clinique et biologique 27.8–9 (2003): 700–707.17. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ofman, Joshua J., et al. The quality of care in Barrett’s esophagus: endoscopist and pathologist practices. The American journal of gastroenterology 96.3 (2001): 876–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Curvers, Wouter L., et al. Quality of Barrett’s surveillance in The Netherlands: a standardized review of endoscopy and pathology reports. European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology 20.7 (2008): 601–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fritz, N., et al. Compliance with terminology standards in reflux, ulcers, and gastritis: A study of 881 consecutive upper gastrointestinal endoscopy reports. Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie 39.12 (2001): 1001–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and American College of Gastroenterology. Quality indicators for GI endoscopic procedure. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Vol. 81, No 1: 2015.

Download references

Acknowledgments

A.B. is supported by a Surgeon Development award from the Esophageal Cancer Education Foundation (ECEF).

Funding

This work was supported, in part, by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thoracic Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Arianna Barbetta, Tamar Nobel, Manjit S. Bains, Matthew Bott, James M. Isbell, David B. Sewell, David R. Jones & Daniela Molena

  2. Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Shahdabul Faraz, Pari Shah & Hans Gerdes

  3. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Shahdabul Faraz

  4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Meier Hsu & Kay See Tan

Authors
  1. Arianna Barbetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shahdabul Faraz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pari Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans Gerdes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meier Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kay See Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tamar Nobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Manjit S. Bains
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Matthew Bott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. James M. Isbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. David B. Sewell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. David R. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Daniela Molena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Molena D: Conception and design of the study and final approval of the manuscript

Barbetta A: Data collection, literature review, and drafting the manuscript

Faraz S: Literature review, drafting, and reviewing the manuscript

Hsu M and Tan KS: Statistical analysis

Shah P, Gerdes H, Bains M, Bott M, Isbell JM, and Jones DR: Critical revision of the manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Molena.

Ethics declarations

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center with the following number IRB no. 16–1631

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Fig. S1

(JPEG 109 kb)

Fig. S2

(JPEG 70 kb)

Table S1

(DOCX 11 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barbetta, A., Faraz, S., Shah, P. et al. Quality of Endoscopy Reports for Esophageal Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?. J Gastrointest Surg 22, 778–784 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3710-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3710-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation