Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Cheshire and Merseyside, Cancer Alliance

Management of High Grade Dysplasia patients

Time period: 2016-20
Cancer Alliance National
Number of High Grade Dysplasia patients in audit 61 1372
Cancer Alliance National
Method of Diagnosis
– First diagnosis confirmed by second pathologist 48 79.3% 88.1%
Treatment planning
– HGD plan discussed at MDT 56 91.8% 89.7%
– Treatment plan for active treatment 41 66.7% 78.8%
First treatment
– Endoscopic therapy (such as endoscopic resection) 31 50.3% 71.8%
– Surveillance 16 25.9% 13.9%

Management of oesophago-gastric cancer patients

Time period: 2018-2020
Organisation National
Number of oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer patients in audit 321 20,319
Case ascertainment for OG cancer (%) 85-100%
Method of Diagnosis
– Patients diagnosed after an emergency admission**
** Percent figure accounts for differences in mix of patients across organisations
50 14.4% 12.6%
– Patients with referral source reported as unknown 1 0.3% 1.8%
Pre-treatment staging of cancer
– Patients having staging CT scan recorded 176 54.8% 85.9%
Treatment planning
– Patients having a plan for curative treatment 145 45.2% 39.4%
– Patients having a plan for non-curative treatment 176 54.8% 60.6%
– Patients with non-curative plans having chemotherapy or radiotherapy 101 57.4% 42.8%

Outcomes for OG cancer patients who have curative surgery

Time period: 2017-2020
Organisation National
Number of patients having surgery 150 6012
Length of stay, median (days) 11 11
Operations in which 15 or more lymph nodes were examined (%) 90.7% 87.9%
30-day postoperative mortality (%) 0.9% 1.6%
90-day postoperative mortality (%) 3.9% 3.2%
Oesophageal surgery
Number of patients having oesophageal surgery 86 N/A
Oesophageal patients with positive longitudinal margins (%) 3.9% 4.0%
Oesophageal patients with positive circumferential margins (%) 18.8% 22.0%
Gastric surgery
Number of patients having gastric surgery 64 N/A
Gastric patients with positive longitudinal margins (%) 12.9% 8.8%

Compare trust outcomes

Download this data as a PDF