Tarnasky, Paul R.

Abstract Background and study aims Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a new technology available for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. It allows under-the-surface visualization and preliminary studies have confirmed standardized characteristics associated with malignancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the first interobserver agreement in identifying previously agreed upon OCT criteria and diagnosing of malignant versus benign disease. Patients and methods Fourteen endoscopists were asked to review an atlas of reference clips and images of eight criteria derived from expert consensus A total of 35 de-identified video clips were then evaluated for presence of the eight criteria and for final diagnosis of malignant versus benign using the atlas as reference Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was done to evaluate interrater agreement. Results Clips of 23 malignant lesions and 12 benign lesions were scored. Excellent interobserver agreement was seen with dilated hypo-reflective structures (0.85) and layering effacement (0.89); hyper-glandular mucosa (0.76), intact layering (0.81), and onion-skin layering (0.77); fair agreement was seen with scalloping (0.58), and thickened epithelium (0.4); poor agreement was seen with hyper-reflective surface (0.36). The diagnostic ICC for both neoplastic (0.8) and non-neoplastic (0.8) was excellent interobserver agreement. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 51 %, ranging from 43 % to 60 %. Conclusions Biliary OCT is a promising new modality for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to almost perfect on eight previously identified criteria. Interobserver agreement for malignancy diagnosis was substantial (0.8). Further studies are needed to validate this data.

INTRODUCTION: Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets. RESULTS: Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary. DISCUSSION: Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.