Georgios Lyratzopoulos

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus

These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barretts oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barretts oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barretts oesophagus and related neoplasia.

Reliability of patient responses in pay for performance schemes: analysis of national General Practitioner Patient Survey data in England

Objective To assess the robustness of patient responses to a new national survey of patient experience as a basis for providing financial incentives to doctors. Design Analysis of the representativeness of the respondents to the GP Patient Survey compared with those who were sampled (5.5 million patients registered with 8273 general practices in England in January 2009) and with the general population. Analysis of non-response bias looked at the relation between practice response rates and scores on the survey. Analysis of the reliability of the survey estimated the proportion of the variance of practice scores attributable to true differences between practices. Results The overall response rate was 38.2% (2.2 million responses), which is comparable to that in surveys using similar methodology in the UK. Men, young adults, and people living in deprived areas were under-represented among respondents. However, for questions related to pay for performance, there was no systematic association between response rates and questionnaire scores. Two questions which triggered payments to general practitioners were reliable measures of practice performance, with average practice-level reliability coefficients of 93.2% and 95.0%. Less than 3% and 0.5% of practices had fewer than the number of responses required to achieve conventional reliability levels of 90% and 70%. A change to the payment formula in 2009 resulted in an increase in the average impact of random variation in patient scores on payments to general practitioners compared with payments made in 2007 and 2008. Conclusions There is little evidence to support the concern of some general practitioners that low response rates and selective non-response bias have led to systematic unfairness in payments attached to questionnaire scores. The study raises issues relating to the validity and reliability of payments based on patient surveys and provides lessons for the UK and for other countries considering the use of patient experience as part of pay for performance schemes.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise—from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists—has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care—its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families—are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

Health benefits and cost effectiveness of endoscopic and nonendoscopic cytosponge screening for Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS We developed a model to compare the health benefits and cost effectiveness of screening for Barretts esophagus by either Cytosponge™ or by conventional endoscopy vs no screening, and to estimate their abilities to reduce mortality from esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS We used microsimulation modeling of a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old men in the United Kingdom with histories of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, assuming the prevalence of Barretts esophagus to be 8%. Participants were invited to undergo screening by endoscopy or Cytosponge (invitation acceptance rates of 23% and 45%, respectively), and outcomes were compared with those from men who underwent no screening. We estimated the number of incident esophageal adenocarcinoma cases prevented and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the different strategies. Patients found to have high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer received endotherapy. Model inputs included data on disease progression, test accuracy, post-treatment status, and surveillance protocols. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year. Supplementary and sensitivity analyses comprised esophagectomy management of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer, screening by ultrathin nasal endoscopy, and different assumptions of uptake of screening invitations for either strategy. RESULTS We estimated that compared with no screening, Cytosponge screening followed by treatment of patients with dysplasia or intramucosal cancer costs an additional

Understanding ethnic and other socio-demographic differences in patient experience of primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey

240 (95% credible interval,

Socio-demographic inequalities in stage of cancer diagnosis: evidence from patients with female breast, lung, colon, rectal, prostate, renal, bladder, melanoma, ovarian and endometrial cancer

196-

Will changes in primary care improve health outcomes? Modelling the impact of financial incentives introduced to improve quality of care in the UK

320) per screening participant and results in a mean gain of 0.015 (95% credible interval, -0.001 to 0.029) QALYs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of

Systematic review: the association between obesity and hepatocellular carcinoma - epidemiological evidence.

15.7 thousand (K) per QALY. The respective values for endoscopy were

Should measures of patient experience in primary care be adjusted for case mix? Evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey

299 (

Preferences for endovascular (EVAR) or open surgical repair among patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms under surveillance

261-