Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2378-1464
The variation in post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates among endoscopy providers in England and associated factors: a population-based study
The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Abstract
Background Post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer (PEUGIC) is an important key performance indicator for endoscopy quality. We examined variation in PEUGIC rates among endoscopy providers in England and explored associated factors.
Methods The was a population-based, retrospective, case–control study, examining data from National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service and Hospital Episode Statistics databases for esophageal and gastric cancers diagnosed between 2009 and 2018 in England. PEUGIC were cancers diagnosed 6 to 36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. Associated factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analyses.
Results The national PEUGIC rate was 8.5%, varying from 5% to 13% among endoscopy providers. Factors associated with PEUGIC included: female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.29 [95%CI 1.23–1.36]); younger age (age >80 years, OR 0.52 [0.48–0.56], compared with ≤60 years); increasing comorbidity (Charlson score >4, OR 5.06 [4.45–5.76]); history of esophageal ulcer (OR 3.30 [3.11–3.50]), Barrett’s esophagus (OR 3.21 [3.02–3.42]), esophageal stricture (OR 1.28 [1.20–1.37]), or gastric ulcer (OR 1.55 [1.44–1.66]); squamous cell carcinoma (OR 1.50 [1.39–1.61]); and UK national endoscopy accreditation status – providers requiring improvement (OR 1.10 [1.01–1.20]), providers never assessed (OR 1.24 [1.04–1.47]).
Conclusion PEUGIC rates varied threefold among endoscopy providers, suggesting unwarranted differences in endoscopy quality. PEUGIC was associated with endoscopy findings known to be associated with upper gastrointestinal cancer and a lack of national endoscopy provider accreditation. PEUGIC variations suggest an opportunity to raise performance standards to detect upper gastrointestinal cancers earlier and improve outcomes.
Publication History
Received: 11 July 2023
Accepted after revision: 19 June 2024
Article published online:
29 August 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Cancer Research UK. Stomach cancer statistics. 2015 Accessed August 23, 2022 at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/stomach-cancer
- 2 Cancer Research UK. Oesophageal cancer statistics. 2015 Accessed August 23, 2022 at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/oesophageal-cancer
- 3 Cancer Research UK. Stomach cancer survival statistics. 2015 Accessed August 23, 2022 at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/stomach-cancer/survival
- 4 Menon S, Trudgill N. How commonly is upper gastrointestinal cancer missed at endoscopy? A meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2014; 2: E46-50
- 5 Pimenta-Melo AR, Monteiro-Soares M, Libânio D. et al. Missing rate for gastric cancer during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 28: 1041-1049
- 6 Januszewicz W, Witczak K, Wieszczy P. et al. Prevalence and risk factors of upper gastrointestinal cancers missed during endoscopy: a nationwide registry-based study. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 653-660
- 7 Beg S, Ragunath K, Wyman A. et al. Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS). Gut 2017; 66: 1886-1899
- 8 Alexandre L, Tsilegeridis-Legeris T, Lam S. Clinical and endoscopic characteristics associated with post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 1123-1135
- 9 Cheung D, Menon S, Hoare J. et al. Factors associated with upper gastrointestinal cancer occurrence after endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 2674-2684
- 10 Shenbagaraj L, Thomas-Gibson S, Stebbing J. et al. Endoscopy in 2017: a national survey of practice in the UK. Frontline Gastroenterol 2019; 10: 7-15
- 11 Burr NE, Derbyshire E, Taylor J. et al. Variation in post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer across colonoscopy providers in English National Health Service: population based cohort study. BMJ 2019; 367: l6090
- 12 Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy. Accreditation statuses. Accessed August 10, 2022 at: https://www.thejag.org.uk/RegisteredUnits.aspx
- 13 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925
- 14 Office for National Statistics. Index of multiple deprivation (IMD) 2007. 2010 Accessed August 09, 2022 at: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/bdc1e1a5-aaf3–4f5a-9988–82a11e341eb8/index-of-multiple-deprivation-imd-2007
- 15 Nuttall M, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 265-273
- 16 National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit. Resources. 2017 Accessed August 10, 2022 at: https://www.nogca.org.uk/resources/?audience%5B%5D=professionals
- 17 Walker K, Neuburger J, Groene O. et al. Public reporting of surgeon outcomes: low numbers of procedures lead to false complacency. Lancet 2013; 382: 1674-1677
- 18 Chadwick G, Groene O, Riley S. et al. Gastric cancers missed during endoscopy in England. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1264-1270
- 19 Chadwick G, Groene O, Hoare J. et al. A population-based, retrospective, cohort study of esophageal cancer missed at endoscopy. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 553-560
- 20 Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1185-1202
- 21 Lee TJW, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
- 22 Arnold M, Soerjomataram I, Ferlay J. et al. Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histological subtype in 2012. Gut 2015; 64: 381-387
- 23 Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2014; 63: 7-42
- 24 Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy. Service accreditation. Accessed December 29, 2022 at: https://www.thejag.org.uk/about-accreditation
- 25 Visrodia K, Singh S, Krishnamoorthi R. et al. Magnitude of missed esophageal adenocarcinoma after Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 599-607
- 26 Kamran U, King D, Abbasi A. et al. A root cause analysis system to establish the most plausible explanation for post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 109-118
- 27 Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Marcos-Pinto R. et al. Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS II): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) guideline update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 365-388
- 28 Lin Y, Wimberly MC. Geographic variations of colorectal and breast cancer late-stage diagnosis and the effects of neighborhood-level factors. J Rural Health 2017; 33: 146-157
- 29 Wrigley H, Roderick P, George S. et al. Inequalities in survival from colorectal cancer: a comparison of the impact of deprivation, treatment, and host factors on observed and cause specific survival. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57: 301-309
- 30 Møller H, Richards S, Hanchett N. et al. Completeness of case ascertainment and survival time error in English cancer registries: impact on 1-year survival estimates. Br J Cancer 2011; 105: 170-176
- 31 The Quality of Nationally Submitted Health and Social Care Data, England – 2013, Second annual report, Experimental statistics. NHS Digital. Accessed January 04, 2023 at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/the-quality-of-nationally-submitted-health-and-social-care-data/the-quality-of-nationally-submitted-health-and-social-care-data-england-2013-second-annual-report-experimental-statistics