Development of a surgical competency assessment tool for sentinel lymph node dissection by minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node dissection is widely used in the staging of endometrial cancer. Variation in surgical techniques potentially impacts diagnostic accuracy and oncologic outcomes, and poses barriers to the comparison of outcomes across institutions or clinical trial sites. Standardization of surgical technique and surgical quality assessment tools are critical to the conduct of clinical trials. By identifying mandatory and prohibited steps of sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection in endometrial cancer, the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a competency assessment tool for use in surgical quality assurance. METHODS: A Delphi methodology was applied, included 35 expert gynecological oncology surgeons from 16 countries. Interviews identified key steps and tasks which were rated mandatory, optional, or prohibited using questionnaires. Using the surgical steps for which consensus was achieved, a competency assessment tool was developed and subjected to assessments of validity and reliability. RESULTS: Seventy percent consensus agreement standardized the specific mandatory, optional, and prohibited steps of SLN dissection for endometrial cancer and informed the development of a competency assessment tool. Consensus agreement identified 21 mandatory and three prohibited steps to complete a SLN dissection. The competency assessment tool was used to rate surgical quality in three preselected videos, demonstrating clear separation in the rating of the skill level displayed with mean skills summary scores differing significantly between the three videos (F score=89.4; P<0.001). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α=0.88). CONCLUSION: Specific mandatory and prohibited steps of SLN dissection in endometrial cancer have been identified and validated based on consensus among a large number of international experts. A competency assessment tool is now available and can be used for surgeon selection in clinical trials and for ongoing, prospective quality assurance in routine clinical care.

Needle versus loop diathermy excision of the transformation zone for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether lower rates or incomplete resection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) may be achieved by needle excision of the transformation zone (NETZ) than with loop excision (LLETZ). DESIGN: A prospective randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A gynaecological oncology centre and a teaching hospital in West London. POPULATION: Four hundred and four women due to receive treatment for suspected CIN. METHODS: Women were randomised to receive either LLETZ or NETZ. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The study was designed to demostrate a difference in the proportion of women with clear histological margins of 82% for LLETZ compared to 94% for NETZ with 90% power at a 5% significance level, allowing for absence of CIN in the treatment specimen in 15%. RESULTS: Four randomised women were excluded from the analysis, as they were ineligible for the study. Three hundred and forty-seven (87%) had CIN in the treatment specimen and could be included in the analysis of excision margins. More women in the NETZ arm had clear histological margins (84.8%vs 75%, (P= 0.03). The median volume of specimens in the NETZ arm was 739 mm(3) larger (P= 0.33) and they were less likely to be removed in multiple pieces (2.5%vs 29.5%, RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.20). Needle excision took longer to perform (median treatment time 210 vs 90 seconds, P<0.0001) and surgeons more often reported the procedure as 'difficult' (9.5%vs 3.0%, RR = 3.17%, 95% CI 1.33 to 7.58). No difference in peri-operative or post-operative complication rates could be demonstrated between the two groups. CONCLUSION: NETZ is more likely to produce a specimen in one piece and with clear margins compared to LLETZ.