Download PDF
Endoscopy 2023; 55(02): 109-118
DOI: 10.1055/a-1917-0192
Original article

A root cause analysis system to establish the most plausible explanation for post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer

Umair Kamran 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, West Bromwich, UK
,
Dominic King 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, West Bromwich, UK
,
Abdullah Abbasi
2   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
,
Ben Coupland
3   Health Informatics, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
,
Nosheen Umar
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, West Bromwich, UK
,
Warren C. Chapman
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, West Bromwich, UK
,
Srisha Hebbar
2   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
,
Nigel J. Trudgill
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, West Bromwich, UK
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints


Referred to by:

Post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer – identifying, understanding, and improving Endoscopy 2023; 55(02): 119-120
DOI: 10.1055/a-1961-7004

Abstract

Background Missing upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC) at endoscopy may prevent curative treatment. We have developed a root cause analysis system for potentially missed UGICs at endoscopy (post-endoscopy UGIC [PEUGIC]) to establish the most plausible explanations.

Methods The electronic records of patients with UGIC at two National Health Service providers were examined. PEUGICs were defined as UGICs diagnosed 6–36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. An algorithm based on the World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithm was developed to categorize and identify potentially avoidable PEUGICs.

Results Of 1327 UGICs studied, 89 (6.7 %) were PEUGICs (patient median [IQR] age at endoscopy 73.5 (63.5–81.0); 60.7 % men). Of the PEUGICs, 40 % were diagnosed in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. PEUGICs were categorized as: A – lesion detected, adequate assessment and decision-making, but PEUGIC occurred (16.9 %); B – lesion detected, inadequate assessment or decision-making (34.8 %); C – possible missed lesion, endoscopy and decision-making adequate (8.9 %); D – possible missed lesion, endoscopy or decision-making inadequate (33.7 %); E – deviated from management pathway but appropriate (5.6 %); F – deviated inappropriately from management pathway (3.4 %). The majority of PEUGICs (71 %) were potentially avoidable and in 45 % the cancer outcome could have been different if it had been diagnosed on the initial endoscopy. There was a negative correlation between endoscopists’ mean annual number of endoscopies and the technically attributable PEUGIC rate (correlation coefficient −0.57; P = 0.004).

Conclusion Missed opportunities to avoid PEUGIC were identified in 71 % of cases. Root cause analysis can standardize future investigation of PEUGIC and guide quality improvement efforts.

Table 1 s, Fig. 1 s



Publication History

Received: 15 December 2021

Accepted after revision: 07 July 2022

Article published online:
31 August 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Menon S, Trudgill N. How commonly is upper gastrointestinal cancer missed at endoscopy? A meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2014; 2: E46-E50
    Google Scholar
  • 3 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chadwick G, Groene O, Riley S. et al. Gastric cancers missed during endoscopy in England. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1264-1270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vradelis S, Maynard N, Warren BF. et al. Quality control in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: detection rates of gastric cancer in Oxford 2005–2008. Postgrad Med J 2011; 87: 335-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Raftopoulos SC, Segarajasingam DS, Burke V. et al. A cohort study of missed and new cancers after esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1292-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rabeneck L, Paszat LF. Circumstances in which colonoscopy misses cancer. Frontline Gastroenterol 2010; 1: 52-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Anderson R, Burr NE, Valori R. Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1287-1299
    Google Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D. et al. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M Criteria. Gastroenterology 2006; 131: 1392-1399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Levine DS, Haggitt RC, Blount PL. et al. An endoscopic biopsy protocol can differentiate high-grade dysplasia from early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 1993; 105: 40-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Banks M, Graham D, Jansen M. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma. Gut 2019; 68: 1545-1575
    Google Scholar
  • 17 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
    Google Scholar
  • 18 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kastelein F, van Olphen SH, Steyerberg EW. et al. Impact of surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus on tumour stage and survival of patients with neoplastic progression. Gut 2016; 65: 548-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Quera R, O’Sullivan K, Quigley EM. Surveillance in Barrett’s oesophagus: will a strategy focused on a high-risk group reduce mortality from oesophageal adenocarcinoma?. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 162-169
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ooi J, Wilson P, Walker G. et al. Dedicated Barrett’s surveillance sessions managed by trained endoscopists improve dysplasia detection rate. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 524-528
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gupta N, Gaddam S, Wani SB. et al. Longer inspection time is associated with increased detection of high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 531-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Park JM, Huo SM, Lee HH. et al. Longer observation time increases proportion of neoplasms detected by esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 460-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Qumseya BJ, Wang H, Badie N. et al. Advanced imaging technologies increase detection of dysplasia and neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 1562-1570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Coletta M, Sami SS, Nachiappan A. et al. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of early neoplasia and specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 57-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Neale JR, James S, Callaghan J. et al. Premedication with N-acetylcysteine and simethicone improves mucosal visualization during gastroscopy: a randomized, controlled, endoscopist-blinded study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25: 778-783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Li Y, Du F, Fu D. The effect of using simethicone with or without N-acetylcysteine before gastroscopy: A meta-analysis and systemic review. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rey JF, Lambert R. ESGE Quality Assurance Committee. ESGE recommendations for quality control in gastrointestinal endoscopy: guidelines for image documentation in upper and lower GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2001; 33: 901-903
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E. et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 843-864
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Chiu PWY, Uedo N, Singh R. et al. An Asian consensus on standards of diagnostic upper endoscopy for neoplasia. Gut 2019; 68: 186-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD. et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016; 65: 1923-1929
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Participants in the Paris Workshop. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-S43
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Hajelssedig OE, Pu LZC, Thompson JY. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of narrow‐band imaging endoscopy with targeted biopsies compared with standard endoscopy with random biopsies in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 2659-2671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rodríguez-Carrasco M, Esposito G, Libânio D. et al. Image-enhanced endoscopy for gastric preneoplastic conditions and neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 1048-1065
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Teh JL, Tan JR, Lau LJF. et al. Longer examination time improves detection of gastric cancer during diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 480-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar