BACKGROUND: There is a lack of existing literature regarding the quality of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reporting for gastric cancer evaluation. This study aims to determine criteria for quality endoscopic evaluation of gastric cancer in North America by identifying important features of the EGD report for pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer and assessing inclusion of these features in existing reports. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with experienced endoscopists from community and academic hospitals affiliated with the University of Toronto to identify essential elements for an EGD report. Then, 225 EGD reports from 2005 to 2008 were evaluated by two trained reviewers for inclusion of recommended EGD report elements and global assessment of report quality and adequacy for surgical planning. RESULTS: Essential elements recommended by interviewed endoscopists include tumor size, location, and distance from gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Approximately 95 % of all reports documented the location of lesions, <5 % documented distance from the GEJ, and <15 % documented tumor size. Overall report quality was rated as excellent for 4-5 % of reports; 20-42 % of all reports were deemed to be adequate for surgical planning. All surgeons interviewed as part of the endoscopist panel indicated that they would repeat the EGD before consulting with patients regarding surgical planning. CONCLUSIONS: For pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer, tumor size, location, and distance from key anatomical landmarks were proposed as essential elements of a quality EGD report. Most of the reviewed reports did not document these elements. Report quality is perceived to be poor and may lead to repeat endoscopy. Developing a standardized EGD reporting format based on inclusion of individual parameters can improve the quality of gastric cancer management.
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of existing literature regarding the quality of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reporting for gastric cancer evaluation. This study aims to determine criteria for quality endoscopic evaluation of gastric cancer in North America by identifying important features of the EGD report for pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer and assessing inclusion of these features in existing reports. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with experienced endoscopists from community and academic hospitals affiliated with the University of Toronto to identify essential elements for an EGD report. Then, 225 EGD reports from 2005 to 2008 were evaluated by two trained reviewers for inclusion of recommended EGD report elements and global assessment of report quality and adequacy for surgical planning. RESULTS: Essential elements recommended by interviewed endoscopists include tumor size, location, and distance from gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Approximately 95 % of all reports documented the location of lesions, <5 % documented distance from the GEJ, and <15 % documented tumor size. Overall report quality was rated as excellent for 4-5 % of reports; 20-42 % of all reports were deemed to be adequate for surgical planning. All surgeons interviewed as part of the endoscopist panel indicated that they would repeat the EGD before consulting with patients regarding surgical planning. CONCLUSIONS: For pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer, tumor size, location, and distance from key anatomical landmarks were proposed as essential elements of a quality EGD report. Most of the reviewed reports did not document these elements. Report quality is perceived to be poor and may lead to repeat endoscopy. Developing a standardized EGD reporting format based on inclusion of individual parameters can improve the quality of gastric cancer management.
Authors: Jagdiesh K Soekhoe; Marcel J M Groenen; Astrid M van Ginneken; G Khaliq; Wilco Lesterhuis; Antonie J P van Tilburg; Rob J Th Ouwendijk Journal: Eur J Intern Med Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 4.487
Authors: Samuel J Wang; Rachel Emery; Clifton D Fuller; Jong-Sung Kim; Dean F Sittig; Charles R Thomas Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Vincent de Jonge; Jerome Sint Nicolaas; Djuna L Cahen; Willem Moolenaar; Rob J Th Ouwendijk; Thjon J Tang; Antonie J P van Tilburg; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: H S Tran Cao; B C Cosman; B Devaraj; S Ramamoorthy; T Savides; M L Krinsky; S Horgan; M A Talamini; M K Savu Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: A L Mahar; A El-Sedfy; M Dixon; M Siddiqui; M Elmi; A Ritter; J Vasilevska-Ristovska; Y Jeong; L Helyer; C Law; B Zagorski; N G Coburn Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: 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 Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 3.452