Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed in community hospitals.

BACKGROUND : The optimal management for patients with low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is unclear. According to the Dutch national guideline, all patients with LGD with histological confirmation of the diagnosis by an expert pathologist (i. e. "confirmed LGD"), are referred for a dedicated re-staging endoscopy at an expert center. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of re-staging endoscopy by an expert endoscopist for patients with confirmed LGD. METHODS : This retrospective cohort study included all patients with flat BE diagnosed in a community hospital who had confirmed LGD and were referred to one of the nine Barrett Expert Centers (BECs) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with prevalent high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer during re-staging in a BEC. RESULTS : Of the 248 patients with confirmed LGD, re-staging in the BEC revealed HGD or cancer in 23 % (57/248). In 79 % (45/57), HGD or cancer in a newly detected visible lesion was diagnosed. Of the remaining patients, re-staging in the BEC showed a second diagnosis of confirmed LGD in 68 % (168/248), while the remaining 9 % (23/248) had nondysplastic BE. CONCLUSION : One quarter of patients with apparent flat BE with confirmed LGD diagnosed in a community hospital had prevalent HGD or cancer after re-staging at an expert center. This endorses the advice to refer patients with confirmed LGD, including in the absence of visible lesions, to an expert center for re-staging endoscopy.

Do pathologists agree with each other on the histological assessment of pT1b oesophageal adenocarcinoma?

Background: In early (T1) oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), the histological profile of an endoscopic resection specimen plays a pivotal role in the prediction of lymph node metastasis and the potential need for oesophagectomy with lymphadenectomy. Objective: To evaluate the inter-observer agreement of the histological assessment of submucosal (pT1b) OAC. Methods: Surgical and endoscopic resection specimens with pT1b OAC were independently reviewed by three gastrointestinal pathologists. Agreement was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient for continuous variables, and Fleiss' kappa (κ) for categorical variables. Bland-Altman plots of the submucosal invasion depth were made. Results: Eighty-five resection specimens with pT1b OAC were evaluated. The agreement was good for differentiation grade (κ=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.87), excellent for lymphovascular invasion (κ=0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.00) and moderate for submucosal invasion depth using the Paris and Pragmatic classifications (κ=0.60, 95% CI 0.49-0.72 and κ=0.42, 95% CI 0.33-0.51, respectively). Systematic mean differences between pathologists were detected for the measurement of submucosal invasion depth, ranging from 297 µm to 602 µm. Conclusions: A substantial discordance was found between pathologists for the measurement of submucosal invasion depth in pT1b OAC. Differences may lead to an over- or underestimation of the lymph node metastasis risk, with grave implications for the treatment strategy. Review by a second gastrointestinal pathologist is recommended to improve differentiating between a favourable and an unfavourable histological profile.

Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Training procedural skills in GI endoscopy once focused on threshold numbers. As threshold numbers poorly reflect individual competence, the focus gradually shifts towards a more individual approach. Tools to assess and document individual learning progress are being developed and incorporated in dedicated training curricula. However, there is a lack of consensus and training guidelines differ worldwide, which reflects uncertainties on optimal set-up of a training programme. AIMS: The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the currently available literature for the use of training and assessment methods in GI endoscopy. Second, we aimed to identify the role of simulator-based training as well as the value of continuous competence assessment in patient-based training. Third, we aimed to propose a structured training curriculum based on the presented evidence. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in the available medical and educational literature databases. The results were systematically reviewed and studies were included using a predefined protocol with independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus round. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 5846 studies. Ninety-four relevant studies on simulators, assessment methods, learning curves and training programmes for GI endoscopy met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies on simulator validation were included. Good validity was demonstrated for four simulators. Twenty-three studies reported on simulator training and learning curves, including 17 randomised control trials. Increased performance on a virtual reality (VR) simulator was shown in all studies. Improved performance in patient-based assessment was demonstrated in 14 studies. Four studies reported on the use of simulators for assessment of competence levels. Current simulators lack the discriminative power to determine competence levels in patient-based endoscopy. Eight out of 14 studies on colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endosonography reported on learning curves in patient-based endoscopy and proved the value of this approach for measuring performance. Ten studies explored the numbers needed to gain competence, but the proposed thresholds varied widely between them. Five out of nine studies describing the development and evaluation of assessment tools for GI endoscopy provided insight into the performance of endoscopists. Five out of seven studies proved that intense training programmes result in good performance. CONCLUSIONS: The use of validated VR simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning of practical skills. Learning curves are valuable for the continuous assessment of performance and are more relevant than threshold numbers. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating simulation-based as well as patient-based training in GI endoscopy. A complete curriculum with the assessment of competence throughout training needs to be developed for all GI endoscopy procedures.

Simulated colonoscopy training leads to improved performance during patient-based assessment.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) endoscopy simulators are increasingly being used in the training of novice endoscopists. There are, however, insufficient data regarding the effect of simulator training on the early learning curve of novice endoscopists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of novice endoscopists during colonoscopy after intensive and prolonged training on a VR endoscopy simulator. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Single university medical center. PATIENTS: Patient-based assessment (PBA) of performance was carried out on patients routinely scheduled for colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Eighteen trainees without any endoscopic experience were included in the study. They were divided into 2 groups. The simulator-training program consisted of either 50 (group I) or 100 (group II) VR colonoscopies. After 10, 30, and 50 (group I) and after 20, 60, and 100 (group II) VR colonoscopies, trainees underwent both simulator-based assessment and PBA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cecal intubation time, colonic insertion depth, and cecal intubation rate. RESULTS: Eighteen novices participated in the study. All completed VR training and assessments. The mean cecal intubation time on the SBA decreased from a baseline of 9.50 minutes to 2.20 minutes at completion of the training (P = .002). Colonic insertion depth during PBA improved from 29.4 cm to 63.7 cm (P < .001). The learning effect of simulator training ceased after 60 colonoscopies. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, no formal sample size calculation. CONCLUSIONS: VR training by using a colonoscopy simulator leads to a significant improvement in performance with the simulator itself and, more importantly, to significantly improved performances during patient-based colonoscopy. This study demonstrates the rationale for intensive simulator training in the early learning curve of novices performing colonoscopy.

Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance.

BACKGROUND: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Committee on Outcomes Research has recommended monitoring nine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-specific quality indicators for quality assurance in ERCP. With the development of a self-assessment tool for ERCP (Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP-RAF-E), key indicators can easily be assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test in daily practice an easy-to-use form for assessment of procedural quality in ERCP and to determine ERCP quality outcomes in a tertiary referral hospital. DESIGN: This was a prospective study carried out in a tertiary referral hospital. In January 2008, a quality self-assessment programme was started. Five qualified endoscopists participated in this study. All ERCPs were appraised using RAF-E. Primary parameters were common bile duct (CBD) cannulation rate and procedural success. The indication was classified and procedural difficulty was graded; success rates of therapeutic interventions were measured for all different difficulty degrees. RESULTS: A total number of 1691 ERCPs were performed. 1515 (89.6%) of these were appraised using RAF-E. Median CBD cannulation success rate was 94.1%. Successful sphincterotomy was accomplished in almost all patients (median 100%; range 98.2-100%). Stent placement was successful in 97.8% and complete stone extraction, if indicated, was achieved in 86.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Quality indicators for ERCP can be measured using the Rotterdam self-assessment programme for ERCP. Outcome data in ERCPs obtained with this RAF-E provide insight into the quality of individual as well as group performance and can be used to assess and set standards for quality control in ERCP.

Competence measurement during colonoscopy training: the use of self-assessment of performance measures.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated a new assessment technique for colonoscopy training. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated colonoscopy skills during training using the Rotterdam Assessment Form for colonoscopy. The questionnaire covers cecal intubation, procedural time, and subjective grading of performance. Individual learning curves are compared with a group reference. RESULTS: Nineteen trainees self-assessed 2,887 colonoscopies. The cecal intubation rate improved from 65% at baseline to 78% and 85% after 100 and 200 colonoscopies, respectively. In our training program the 90% threshold was reached after 280 colonoscopies on average. Cecal intubation time improved from 13:10 minutes at baseline to 9:30 and 8:30 after 100 and 200 colonoscopies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This novel self-assessment form allows individual learning curves to be compared with a group reference, provides data on the development of dexterity skills and individual training targets, and stimulates trainees to identify steps for self-improvement.