Incidence and oncological implication of adrenal incidentalomas in esophageal cancer patients.

Adrenal incidentalomas are regularly encountered during imaging for esophageal cancer patients, but their oncological significance remains unknown. This study aimed to describe the incidence and etiology of adrenal incidentalomas observed throughout the diagnostic workup. This retrospective cohort study included all esophageal cancer patients referred to or diagnosed in the Amsterdam UMC between January 2012 and December 2016. Radiology and multidisciplinary team meeting reports were reviewed for adrenal incidentalomas. In case of adrenal incidentaloma, the 18FDG-PET/CT was reassessed by a radiologist blinded for the original report. In case of a metachronous incidentaloma during follow-up, visibility on previous imaging was reassessed. Primary outcome was the incidence, etiology and oncological consequence of synchronous adrenal incidentalomas. This study included 1,164 esophageal cancer patients, with a median age of 66 years. Patients were predominantly male (76.1%) and the majority had an adenocarcinoma (69.0%). Adrenal incidentalomas were documented in 138 patients (11.9%) during the diagnostic workup. At primary esophageal cancer workup, 22 incidentalomas proved malignant. However, follow-up showed that four incidentalomas were inaccurately diagnosed as benign and three malignant incidentalomas were visible on staging imaging but initially missed. Stage migration occurred in 15 of 22 (68.2%), but this would have been higher if none were missed or inaccurately diagnosed. The oncological impact of adrenal incidentalomas in patients with esophageal cancer is significant as a considerable part of incidentalomas changed treatment intent from curative to palliative. As stage migration is likely, pathological examination of a synchronous adrenal incidentaloma should be weighted in mind.

Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review.

Quality indicators are used to measure quality of care and enable benchmarking. An overview of all existing hip fracture quality indicators is lacking. The primary aim was to identify quality indicators for hip fracture care reported in literature, hip fracture audits, and guidelines. The secondary aim was to compose a set of methodologically sound quality indicators for the evaluation of hip fracture care in clinical practice. A literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines and an internet search were performed to identify hip fracture quality indicators. The indicators were subdivided into process, structure, and outcome indicators. The methodological quality of the indicators was judged using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. For structure and process indicators, the construct validity was assessed. Sixteen publications, nine audits and five guidelines were included. In total, 97 unique quality indicators were found: 9 structure, 63 process, and 25 outcome indicators. Since detailed methodological information about the indicators was lacking, the AIRE instrument could not be applied. Seven indicators correlated with an outcome measure. A set of nine quality indicators was extracted from the literature, audits, and guidelines. Many quality indicators are described and used. Not all of them correlate with outcomes of care and have been assessed methodologically. As methodological evidence is lacking, we recommend the extracted set of nine indicators to be used as the starting point for further clinical research. Future research should focus on assessing the clinimetric properties of the existing quality indicators.