Validation of Quality Assessment Measures for Inpatient Gastroenterology Consults on Oncologic Patients in Non-teaching Services at a Cancer Center: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate tools for measuring inpatient gastroenterology (GI) consultation quality on oncologic patients. METHODS: A total of 145 inpatient GI consults were analyzed using electronic health records in this cross-sectional study. Essential Consult Elements on oncologic-hospitalized patients (EE-COH) and Hospitalized Oncologic Patients Enhanced Quality of Consult Assessment Tool (HOPE-QCAT) were used for grading. Interrater reliability was assessed. RESULTS: Both EE-COH and HOPE-QCAT showed near-perfect interrater reliability across most measures in the validation cohort. On application of these measures for quality assessment, basic evaluation by the requesting hospitalist was partially complete in 24.8%, the request for GI consultation was inappropriate in 18.6%, while the rationale for recommended studies from the GI consultant was provided in 55.7% of cases suggesting key areas for quality improvement. CONCLUSION: We developed highly reliable quality measures for inpatient GI consults on oncology patients. The EE-COH and HOPE-QCAT tools can be utilized in future studies of inpatient GI consult quality and to form the basis for interventions to improve communication between consultants and hospitalists. Such tools could be adapted for inpatient quality assessment across other specialties and settings.

Endoscopic Evaluation of PET/CT Abnormalities in the Gastrointestinal Tract: Yield and Approach.

BACKGROUND: Unexpected hypermetabolic activity is often encountered in the gastrointestinal tract when PET/CT is performed for various indications, prompting endoscopic evaluation. Our aim was to characterize the types of lesions seen in segments of the gastrointestinal tract with unexpected PET/CT abnormalities as well as clinically significant lesions seen on endoscopy which did not produce a PET/CT abnormality to guide the endoscopist tasked with evaluating these imaging findings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a database of endoscopies performed at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 1, 2016 and September 30, 2021 for an indication of "abnormal PET." We divided the gastrointestinal tract into segments and defined categories of endoscopic/histologic findings for each segment. We counted the number of segments with an abnormal PET/CT finding and corresponding endoscopic/histologic abnormality as well as the number of segments with an endoscopic/histologic abnormality but normal PET/CT. RESULTS: PET/CT identified 209 segments with hypermetabolic activity, 109 of which had corresponding endoscopic/histologic abnormalities. In the jejunum and ileum, all corresponding lesions were malignant. Seventy-three percent of corresponding lesions in the stomach were H. pylori positive. PET/CT failed to detect 34.7% of clinically significant lesions diagnosed endoscopically, including 1 malignancy in the transverse colon and many inflammatory or low-risk premalignant lesions. CONCLUSION: PET/CT abnormalities seen in the small bowel should be evaluated urgently as nearly all correlates were malignant, while abnormalities in the stomach should prompt workup for H. pylori. Most lesions missed by PET/CT were inflammatory or low-risk premalignant yet clinically significant, confirming the need to inspect the entirety of the upper or lower gastrointestinal tract during endoscopy.

Computed Tomography Angiography and Conventional Angiography for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Non-variceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the diagnostic value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and conventional angiography (CA) and the therapeutic value of transarterial embolization for acute gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with malignancy. METHODS: A retrospective review of 100 patients who underwent CTA and/or CA for gastrointestinal bleeding at a comprehensive cancer center between the years 2011-2021 was performed. Clinical and patient outcome data were collected and analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests (whichever is appropriate) for categorical variables in univariate analysis. All tests were two-sided at a significance level of 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of our patients underwent CTA alone, 29% underwent CA alone, and 19% underwent both procedures. Overall, CTA was positive in 11.3% (8/71) of patients and CA was positive in 22.9% (11/38) of patients. Of patients who underwent both studies, 52.6% (10/19) were positive for both. ICU admission was associated with CTA and/or CA positivity (p=0.015). Of 48 patients with data for embolization, 50% of patients underwent transarterial embolization for bleeding, 11 patients had identifiable bleeding on CA, and 13 patients underwent prophylactic embolization at the site of suspected bleeding. Rebleeding following embolization was found in 33.3% (8/24) of patients, including six patients who underwent prophylactic embolization and two patients who were treated for visualized bleeding. CONCLUSION: CTA and CA are two critical studies for patients with GI bleeding and a history of malignancy. Neither alone can effectively exclude an identifiable source of bleeding. In patients with a history of malignancy, transarterial embolization may be an effective treatment of both angiographically visible and occult sources of GI bleeding.