Arianna Barbetta1, Shahdabul Faraz2,3, Pari Shah2, Hans Gerdes2, Meier Hsu4, Kay See Tan4, Tamar Nobel1, Manjit S Bains1, Matthew Bott1, James M Isbell1, David B Sewell1, David R Jones1, Daniela Molena5. 1. Thoracic Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Thoracic Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. molenad@mskcc.org.
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.
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.
Authors: Thomas K Varghese; Wayne L Hofstetter; Nabil P Rizk; Donald E Low; Gail E Darling; Thomas J Watson; John D Mitchell; Mark J Krasna Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.330
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: Matthew D Rutter; Carlo Senore; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Michal F Kaminski; Cristiano Spada; Michael Bretthauer; Cathy Bennett; Cristina Bellisario; Silvia Minozzi; Cesare Hassan; Colin Rees; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Tomas Hucl; Thierry Ponchon; Lars Aabakken; Paul Fockens Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Ingrid Gorlot; Stanislas Bruley-des-Varannes; Marc Le Rhun; Claude Masliah; Jean-Paul Galmiche Journal: Gastroenterol Clin Biol Date: 2003 Aug-Sep
Authors: Suqing Li; Marc Monachese; Misbah Salim; Naveen Arya; Anand V Sahai; Nauzer Forbes; Christopher Teshima; Mohammad Yaghoobi; Yen-I Chen; Eric Lam; Paul James Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.628