1
|
Reddy AT, Lee JP, Leiman DA. Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders. Dis Esophagus 2024; 37:doae013. [PMID: 38458618 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doae013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2024] [Accepted: 02/13/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024]
Abstract
Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joshua P Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - David A Leiman
- Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Inoue M, Ragunath K. Quality indicators in Barrett's endoscopy: Best is yet to come. Dig Endosc 2024; 36:265-273. [PMID: 37525901 DOI: 10.1111/den.14654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/30/2023] [Indexed: 08/02/2023]
Abstract
There is growing interest in establishing quality indicators (QIs) for endoscopic screening and surveillance in Barrett's esophagus (BE). QIs are objective, measurable, and evidence-based metrics that are applicable in a health-care setting to monitor a process and identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to achieve defined goals. In the Barrett's endoscopy setting, QIs can offer a standardized approach to monitor and maintain high-quality endoscopy for BE screening and surveillance that will allow measuring performance of an endoscopist as an individual, a group, or a facility. Since BE is an endoscopically identifiable premalignant condition with histological corroboration, adherence to QIs is paramount for the early and accurate detection of dysplasia and neoplasia. It is the holy grail for BE screening and surveillance. Although several suggested QIs for Barrett's endoscopy exist, issues remain in determining the most appropriate ones. These issues include inconsistent use of terminology, unclear definitions, and a scarcity of studies linking these QIs with relevant patient outcomes, making it difficult for clinicians to understand the concept and clinical importance. Hence, there is an urgent need to determine what should constitute appropriate QIs for Barrett's endoscopy, clearly define items used in the QIs, and identify ways to measure these KPIs. Ultimately, well-defined and validated QIs will contribute to clinically effective, safe, timely, and patient-focused care. In this review, we summarize recent literature and discuss four proposed QIs: (i) neoplasia detection rate; (ii) postendoscopy Barrett's neoplasia; (iii) Barrett's inspection time; and (iv) adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Madoka Inoue
- Curtin Medical School, Curtin University, Australia
- Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - Krish Ragunath
- Curtin Medical School, Curtin University, Australia
- Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Emura F, Chandrasekar VT, Hassan C, Armstrong D, Messmann H, Arantes V, Araya R, Barrera-Leon O, Bergman JJGHM, Bandhari P, Bourke MJ, Cerisoli C, Chiu PWY, Desai M, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Falk GW, Fujishiro M, Gaddam S, Goda K, Gross S, Haidry R, Ho L, Iyer PG, Kashin S, Kothari S, Lee YY, Matsuda K, Neuhaus H, Oyama T, Ragunath K, Repici A, Shaheen N, Singh R, Sobrino-Cossio S, Wang KK, Waxman I, Sharma P. Rio de Janeiro Global Consensus on Landmarks, Definitions, and Classifications in Barrett's Esophagus: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Study. Gastroenterology 2022; 163:84-96.e2. [PMID: 35339464 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2021] [Revised: 03/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Despite the significant advances made in the diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE), there is still a need for standardized definitions, appropriate recognition of endoscopic landmarks, and consistent use of classification systems. Current controversies in basic definitions of BE and the relative lack of anatomic knowledge are significant barriers to uniform documentation. We aimed to provide consensus-driven recommendations for uniform reporting and global application. METHODS The World Endoscopy Organization Barrett's Esophagus Committee appointed leaders to develop an evidence-based Delphi study. A working group of 6 members identified and formulated 23 statements, and 30 internationally recognized experts from 18 countries participated in 3 rounds of voting. We defined consensus as agreement by ≥80% of experts for each statement and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. RESULTS After 3 rounds of voting, experts achieved consensus on 6 endoscopic landmarks (palisade vessels, gastroesophageal junction, squamocolumnar junction, lesion location, extraluminal compressions, and quadrant orientation), 13 definitions (BE, hiatus hernia, squamous islands, columnar islands, Barrett's endoscopic therapy, endoscopic resection, endoscopic ablation, systematic inspection, complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia, complete eradication of dysplasia, residual disease, recurrent disease, and failure of endoscopic therapy), and 4 classification systems (Prague, Los Angeles, Paris, and Barrett's International NBI Group). In round 1, 18 statements (78%) reached consensus, with 12 (67%) receiving strong agreement from more than half of the experts. In round 2, 4 of the remaining statements (80%) reached consensus, with 1 statement receiving strong agreement from 50% of the experts. In the third round, a consensus was reached on the remaining statement. CONCLUSIONS We developed evidence-based, consensus-driven statements on endoscopic landmarks, definitions, and classifications of BE. These recommendations may facilitate global uniform reporting in BE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabian Emura
- Gastroenterology Division, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia; Advanced GI Endoscopy, EmuraCenter LatinoAmerica, Bogotá DC, Colombia.
| | | | - Cesare Hassan
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Milan, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - David Armstrong
- Division of Gastroenterology & Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Helmut Messmann
- Department of Gastroenterology, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
| | - Vitor Arantes
- Endoscopy Division, Hospital das Clınicas e Mater Dei Contorno, Belo Horizonte, Brazil; Alfa Institute of Gastroenterology, Medical School, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
| | - Raul Araya
- Clinic Los Andes University, Division of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, Army Hospital of Santiago, Santiago, Chile
| | - Oscar Barrera-Leon
- Gastroenterology Division, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia; Advanced GI Endoscopy, EmuraCenter LatinoAmerica, Bogotá DC, Colombia
| | - Jacques J G H M Bergman
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pradeep Bandhari
- Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Michael J Bourke
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - Cecilio Cerisoli
- Gastroenterology and Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy (GEDYT), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Madhav Desai
- Division of Gastroenterology, VA Medical Center and University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri
| | - Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
- MEDCIDS-Department of Community Medicine, Information and Decision in Health, Faculty of Porto, University of Medicine, Porto, Portugal
| | - Gary W Falk
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Srinivas Gaddam
- Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
| | - Kenichi Goda
- Digestive Disease Center, Showa University Koto Toyosu Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Seth Gross
- Division of Gastroenterology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Rehan Haidry
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopy, University College London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Lawrence Ho
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sergey Kashin
- Department of Gastroenterology, Yaroslavl Oncology Hospital, Yaroslavl, Russian Federation
| | - Shivangi Kothari
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, Rochester, New York; Developmental Endoscopy, Lab at University of Rochester (DELUR), University of Rochester Medical, Rochester, New York
| | - Yeong Yeh Lee
- Department of Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu, Malaysia
| | - Koji Matsuda
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan
| | - Horst Neuhaus
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Interventional Endoscopy, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Tsuneo Oyama
- Department of Endoscopy, Saku Central Hospital Advanced Care Center, Nagano, Japan
| | - Krish Ragunath
- Department of Gastroenterology, Curtin University Medical School, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Alessandro Repici
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Milan, Italy; Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicholas Shaheen
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Rajvinder Singh
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Lyell McEwin Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Sergio Sobrino-Cossio
- Unidad de Endoscopia y Fisiología Digestiva, Hospital Ángeles del Pedregal, México DF, México
| | - Kenneth K Wang
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Irving Waxman
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Prateek Sharma
- Division of Gastroenterology, VA Medical Center and University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hamade N, Kamboj AK, Krishnamoorthi R, Singh S, Hassett LC, Katzka DA, Kahi CJ, Fatima H, Iyer PG. Systematic review with meta-analysis: neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2021; 54:546-559. [PMID: 34275161 PMCID: PMC9152697 DOI: 10.1111/apt.16531] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Revised: 02/17/2021] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neoplasia detection rate, the proportion of Barrett's oesophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected at index surveillance endoscopy has been proposed as a quality metric. However, the correlation between neoplasia detection rate and a clinically relevant outcome like post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia remains unknown. Post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia refers to the rate of high-grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma on repeat endoscopy within one year of an index screening examination revealing non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or low-grade dysplasia. AIM To assess correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. METHODS We performed a systematic search of multiple databases from date of inception to June 2021 to identify cohort studies reporting both neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Data from each study were pooled using a random effects model, and their correlation assessed using meta-regression. Heterogeneity was assessed and a priori planned subgroup analyses were conducted. RESULTS Ten studies with 27 894 patients with Barrett's oesophagus were included. The pooled neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia were 5.0% (95% CI: 3.4%-7.1%, I2 = 97%) and 19.6% (95% CI: 10.1%-34.7%, I2 = 96%), respectively. Meta-regression revealed a statistically significant inverse relationship between the two variables (coefficient -3.50, 95% CI: -4.63 to -2.37, P < 0.01). With every 1% increase of neoplasia detection rate, post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia decreased by 3.50%. Heterogeneity was high despite adjusting for study quality and performing several subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION We observed a statistically significant inverse correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Additional studies are needed to further validate this correlation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nour Hamade
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Amrit K. Kamboj
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Mason Medical Centre, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Siddharth Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | | | - David A. Katzka
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Charles J. Kahi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Hala Fatima
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Prasad G. Iyer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Dhaliwal L, Codipilly DC, Gandhi P, Johnson ML, Lansing R, Wang KK, Leggett CL, Katzka DA, Iyer PG. Neoplasia Detection Rate in Barrett's Esophagus and Its Impact on Missed Dysplasia: Results from a Large Population-Based Database. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19:922-929.e1. [PMID: 32707339 PMCID: PMC7854811 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2020] [Revised: 07/12/2020] [Accepted: 07/16/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS It is a challenge to detect dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are missed in 25%-33% of cases. The neoplasia detection rate (NDR), defined as the rate of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC detection during initial surveillance endoscopy, has been proposed as a quality metric for endoscopic evaluation of patients with BE. However, current estimates are from referral center cohorts, which might overestimate NDR. Effects on rates of missed dysplasia are also unknown. We analyzed data from a large cohort of patients with BE to estimate the NDR and factors associated with it, and assess the effects of the NDR on the rate of missed dysplasia. METHODS We analyzed data from 1066 patients in the Rochester Epidemiology Project-linked medical record system, a population-based cohort of patients with BE (confirmed by review of the endoscopic and histologic reports) from 11 southeastern Minnesota counties from 1991 through 2019. Biopsies reported to contain dysplasia were confirmed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. The NDR was calculated as the rate of HGD or EAC detected by histologic analyses of biopsies collected during the first surveillance endoscopy. Patients without HGD or EAC at their initial endoscopy (n = 391) underwent repeat endoscopy within 12 months; HGD or EAC detected at the repeat endoscopy were considered to be missed on index endoscopy. Factors associated with NDR and missed dysplasia were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS The NDR was 4.9% (95% CI, 3.8-6.4); 3.1% of patients had HGD, 1.8% had EAC, and 10.6% had low-grade dysplasia. Factors associated with higher rates of detection of neoplasia included older age, male sex, smoking, increasing length of BE, and surveillance endoscopies by gastroenterologists. This NDR was associated with a substantially lower rate of missed dysplasia (13%). CONCLUSIONS In an analysis of 1066 patients with BE in a population-based cohort, we found a lower NDR and lower rate of missed dysplasia than previously reported. NDR may have value as a quality metric in BE surveillance if validated in other cohorts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lovekirat Dhaliwal
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - D Chamil Codipilly
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Parth Gandhi
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Michele L Johnson
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Ramona Lansing
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kenneth K Wang
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Cadman L Leggett
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - David A Katzka
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|