Quality of Endoscopy Reports for Esophageal Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?
- 60 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsEsophagogastric endoscopy Endoscopic ultrasound Esophageal cancer Quality indicators Standardization
A.B. is supported by a Surgeon Development award from the Esophageal Cancer Education Foundation (ECEF).
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
This work was supported, in part, by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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.
- 3.Han, Samuel, and Sachin Wani. Quality Indicators in Endoscopic Ablation for Barrett’s Esophagus. Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology (2017)15:1–15.Google Scholar
- 4.Swanson, S. J., and P. Linden. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minerva chirurgica 57.6 (2002): 795–810.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.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):81–9Google 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
- 21.American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and American College of Gastroenterology. Quality indicators for GI endoscopic procedure. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Vol. 81, No 1: 2015.Google Scholar