Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 778–784 | Cite as

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

  • Arianna Barbetta
  • Shahdabul Faraz
  • Pari Shah
  • Hans Gerdes
  • Meier Hsu
  • Kay See Tan
  • Tamar Nobel
  • Manjit S. Bains
  • Matthew Bott
  • James M. Isbell
  • David B. Sewell
  • David R. Jones
  • Daniela Molena
Original Article
  • 60 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Esophagogastric endoscopy Endoscopic ultrasound Esophageal cancer Quality indicators Standardization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

Author 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

Funding

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.

Supplementary material

11605_2018_3710_Fig5_ESM.jpg (109 kb)
Fig. S1

(JPEG 109 kb)

11605_2018_3710_Fig6_ESM.jpg (71 kb)
Fig. S2

(JPEG 70 kb)

11605_2018_3710_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Table S1 (DOCX 11 kb)

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Swanson, S. J., and P. Linden. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minerva chirurgica 57.6 (2002): 795–810.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Granger, Victoire, et al. Initial endoscopic description of esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Gastroentérologie clinique et biologique 30.12 (2006): 1365–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Park WG, Shaheen NJ et al. Quality indicators for EGD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):17–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rutter MD, Rees CJ. Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2014 Jun;46(6):526–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):98–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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): 876–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arianna Barbetta
    • 1
  • Shahdabul Faraz
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pari Shah
    • 2
  • Hans Gerdes
    • 2
  • Meier Hsu
    • 4
  • Kay See Tan
    • 4
  • Tamar Nobel
    • 1
  • Manjit S. Bains
    • 1
  • Matthew Bott
    • 1
  • James M. Isbell
    • 1
  • David B. Sewell
    • 1
  • David R. Jones
    • 1
  • Daniela Molena
    • 1
  1. 1.Thoracic Surgery Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service, Department of MedicineMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations