The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy

Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy
Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy
Background: histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known.Methods: a survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins.Results: survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027).Conclusion: preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.
England, Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology, Esophagectomy/standards, Esophagus/pathology, Humans, Lymph Node Excision, Margins of Excision, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Wales
0007-1323
74-79
Pucher, P H
6b51dabb-77c2-40c6-bfa7-1daa3f82c0a6
Green, M
d154883e-8742-4339-b0fb-49c0bcbecdcc
Bateman, A C
e302a81f-ca4c-48ae-9145-bff4e1ebef87
Underwood, T J
8e81bf60-edd2-4b0e-8324-3068c95ea1c6
Maynard, N
b1551de8-a068-4e5d-89d2-9d47540c0dff
Allum, W H
19a9b8a7-e082-4450-9703-ca80b5456087
Novelli, M
6e75fff4-a510-4a85-a9da-969b8d91c969
Gossage, J A
0c7144f3-23e3-4d41-8c89-d937ae1579d0
Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons
Pucher, P H
6b51dabb-77c2-40c6-bfa7-1daa3f82c0a6
Green, M
d154883e-8742-4339-b0fb-49c0bcbecdcc
Bateman, A C
e302a81f-ca4c-48ae-9145-bff4e1ebef87
Underwood, T J
8e81bf60-edd2-4b0e-8324-3068c95ea1c6
Maynard, N
b1551de8-a068-4e5d-89d2-9d47540c0dff
Allum, W H
19a9b8a7-e082-4450-9703-ca80b5456087
Novelli, M
6e75fff4-a510-4a85-a9da-969b8d91c969
Gossage, J A
0c7144f3-23e3-4d41-8c89-d937ae1579d0

Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (2021) Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy. British Journal of Surgery, 108 (1), 74-79. (doi:10.1093/bjs/znaa038).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known.Methods: a survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins.Results: survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027).Conclusion: preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.

Text
LN and margins after oesophagectomy_bjs_manuscript_rev1 - Accepted Manuscript
Download (230kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 15 September 2020
e-pub ahead of print date: 28 December 2020
Published date: 27 January 2021
Keywords: England, Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology, Esophagectomy/standards, Esophagus/pathology, Humans, Lymph Node Excision, Margins of Excision, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Wales

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 449803
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/449803
ISSN: 0007-1323
PURE UUID: 547f285c-54ee-4b36-9897-b0bb1178d39a
ORCID for T J Underwood: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-9455-2188

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 17 Jun 2021 16:36
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 06:38

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: P H Pucher
Author: M Green
Author: A C Bateman
Author: T J Underwood ORCID iD
Author: N Maynard
Author: W H Allum
Author: M Novelli
Author: J A Gossage
Corporate Author: Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×