Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma and root cause analysis in Auckland, New Zealand.

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-09-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2676-3883
Seong Shin, Dongyeon Kang, Russell S Walmsley
{"title":"Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma and root cause analysis in Auckland, New Zealand.","authors":"Seong Shin, Dongyeon Kang, Russell S Walmsley","doi":"10.1055/a-2676-3883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinomas (PEEC) challenge timely diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinomas (OAs). This study aimed to determine prevalence of PEECs in Auckland region and elucidate the most plausible causes through a root-cause analysis framework.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>OA cases diagnosed in Auckland from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the New Zealand Cancer Registry (NZCR). Electronic clinical data were collected via the Regional Clinical Portal software. The primary outcome was PEEC prevalence, defined as OA diagnosed 6 to 36 months following an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) that failed to detect the cancer. Identified PEECs were classified into six categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 633 OA cases, 45 (7.1%) were PEECs. A higher prevalence of PEEC was observed in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) (18.1% vs 2.7%), undergoing surveillance EGDs (52.6% vs 3.6%) and with early-stage cancers. Root-cause analysis delineated the PEEC causes, classified as follows: A (17.8%): lesion was identified, endoscopic assessment was adequate, follow-up was appropriately planned and executed, yet PEEC developed; B (17.8%): follow-up was delayed due to administrative factors; C (22.2%): follow-up decisions were inappropriate; D (22.2%): inadequate endoscopic assessment; E (11.1%): lesion was unidentified despite adequate assessment; and F (8.9%): lesion was unidentified and assessment was inadequate. Categories B, C, D, and F comprised 71.1% of cases deemed potentially avoidable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Auckland's PEEC prevalence aligns with international post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates. Root-cause analysis underscores that a significant proportion of PEECs may be preventable with improved clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a26763883"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2676-3883","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinomas (PEEC) challenge timely diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinomas (OAs). This study aimed to determine prevalence of PEECs in Auckland region and elucidate the most plausible causes through a root-cause analysis framework.

Patients and methods: OA cases diagnosed in Auckland from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the New Zealand Cancer Registry (NZCR). Electronic clinical data were collected via the Regional Clinical Portal software. The primary outcome was PEEC prevalence, defined as OA diagnosed 6 to 36 months following an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) that failed to detect the cancer. Identified PEECs were classified into six categories.

Results: Among 633 OA cases, 45 (7.1%) were PEECs. A higher prevalence of PEEC was observed in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) (18.1% vs 2.7%), undergoing surveillance EGDs (52.6% vs 3.6%) and with early-stage cancers. Root-cause analysis delineated the PEEC causes, classified as follows: A (17.8%): lesion was identified, endoscopic assessment was adequate, follow-up was appropriately planned and executed, yet PEEC developed; B (17.8%): follow-up was delayed due to administrative factors; C (22.2%): follow-up decisions were inappropriate; D (22.2%): inadequate endoscopic assessment; E (11.1%): lesion was unidentified despite adequate assessment; and F (8.9%): lesion was unidentified and assessment was inadequate. Categories B, C, D, and F comprised 71.1% of cases deemed potentially avoidable.

Conclusions: Auckland's PEEC prevalence aligns with international post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates. Root-cause analysis underscores that a significant proportion of PEECs may be preventable with improved clinical practice.

新西兰奥克兰内镜后食管腺癌及其根本原因分析。
背景与研究目的:内镜后食管腺癌(PEEC)对食管腺癌(OAs)的及时诊断提出了挑战。本研究旨在确定奥克兰地区PEECs的患病率,并通过根本原因分析框架阐明最合理的原因。患者和方法:从新西兰癌症登记处(NZCR)检索2013年至2022年在奥克兰诊断的OA病例。通过区域临床门户软件收集电子临床数据。主要终点是PEEC的患病率,定义为在食管胃十二指肠镜检查(EGD)未发现癌症后6至36个月诊断为OA。确定的peec分为六类。结果:633例OA患者中有45例(7.1%)为PEECs。在Barrett食管(BE)患者(18.1%对2.7%)、EGDs监测患者(52.6%对3.6%)和早期癌症患者中观察到较高的PEEC患病率。根本原因分析描述了PEEC的原因,分类如下:A(17.8%):病变被发现,内镜评估充分,随访计划和执行得当,但PEEC仍发生;B类(17.8%):因行政因素导致随访延迟;C(22.2%):随访决策不恰当;D(22.2%):内窥镜评估不充分;E(11.1%):尽管进行了充分的评估,但病变仍未确诊;F(8.9%):病变不明,评估不充分。B、C、D和F类病例占被认为可能避免的病例的71.1%。结论:奥克兰的PEEC患病率与国际上内镜检查后上消化道癌症发病率一致。根本原因分析强调,通过改进临床实践,很大一部分peec是可以预防的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信