Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 May;22(5):778-784.
doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3710-4. Epub 2018 Mar 5.

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

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  5
Affiliations

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

Arianna Barbetta et al. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 May.

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: Endoscopic ultrasound; Esophageal cancer; Esophagogastric endoscopy; Quality indicators; Standardization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of number of quality indicators (QIs) reported at the pretreatment endoscopy among 115 patients
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Quality indicator—specific rates among 115 patients who underwent pretreatment esophagogastroduodenoscopy. GEJ, gastroesophageal junction
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of specific quality indicators in the esophagogastroduodenoscopy report between our institution (Memorial Sloan Kettering [MSK]) and an outside hospital (OSH). GEJ, gastroesophageal junction among 53 patients with EGD at both
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison of specific quality indicators in the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) report between our institution (Memorial Sloan Kettering [MSK]) and an outside hospital (OSH). FNA, fine needle aspiration
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

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. 2013;96(1):346–356. - PubMed
    1. Ning Bo, Abdelfatah Mohamed M, Othman Mohamed O. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early stage esophageal cancer. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2017;6(2):88. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Han Samuel, Sachin Wani. Quality Indicators in Endoscopic Ablation for Barrett’s Esophagus. Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology. 2017;15:1–15. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Swanson SJ, Linden P. Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minerva chirurgica. 2002;57(6):795–810. - PubMed
    1. Urschel John D, 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. 2003;185(6):538–543. - PubMed

Publication types