Use, applicability, and dissemination of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines in oncology in Germany: a qualitative interview study with healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer have high information needs; however, they are often inadequately met. Patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs), a special form of evidence-based information, translate patient-relevant recommendations from clinical practice guidelines into lay language. To date, little is known about the experience of PVGs from healthcare providers' perspective in healthcare. This study aims to investigate the use, applicability, and dissemination of PVGs in oncology from the healthcare providers' perspective in Germany. METHODS: Twenty semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with oncological healthcare providers in Germany between October and December 2021. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software was utilised to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 20 healthcare providers (14 female, 6 male), mainly working as psychotherapists/psycho-oncologists and physicians, participated. Most participants (75%) were aware of the existence of PVGs. The content was predominantly perceived as comprehensible and relevant, whereas opinions on the design and format were mixed. The perceived lack of up-to-date information limited participants' trust in the content. Most felt that PVGs positively impact healthcare owing to the fact that they improve patients' knowledge about their disease. Additionally, PVGs served as a guide and helped healthcare providers structure physician-patient talks. Healthcare provider's unawareness of the existence of PVGs was cited as an obstructive factor to its dissemination to patients. CONCLUSION: Limited knowledge of the existence of PVGs among healthcare providers, coupled with alternative patient information, hinders the use and dissemination of PVGs in healthcare. However, the applicability of PVGs seemed to be acceptable owing to their content and good comprehensibility, especially with respect to physician-patient communication.

Barriers and facilitators in developing patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - qualitative interviews on experiences of international guideline producers.

BACKGROUND: Several guideline organizations produce patient versions of clinical practice guidelines (PVGs) which translate recommendations into simple language. A former study of our working group revealed that few guideline organizations publish their methods used to develop PVGs. Clear definitions of PVGs do not prevail and their purposes often remain unclear. We aimed to explore experts' perspectives on developing, disseminating and implementing PVGs to discuss and incorporate these experiences when consenting on methodological guidance and further improving PVGs. METHODS: We conducted 17 semi-structured telephone interviews with international experts working with PVGs from September 2021 through January 2022. We conducted the interviews in English or German, they were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We utilized Mayring's qualitative content analysis with MAXQDA software to analyze the data. RESULTS: In two interviews two participants were interviewed at the same time. This resulted in a total of 19 participants from 16 different organizations and eight different countries participated. Most were female (16/19) and their experience in working with PVGs ranged from 1 to 20 years. All follow methodological standards when developing PVGs, but the extent of these standards and their public accessibility differs. Aims and target groups of PVGs vary between organizations. Facilitators for developing PVGs are working with a multidisciplinary team, financial resources, consultation processes and a high-quality underlying CPG. Facilitators for disseminating and implementing PVGs are using various strategies. Barriers, on the other hand, are the lack of these factors. All participants mentioned patient involvement as a key aspect in PVG development. CONCLUSION: The steps in the PVG development process are largely similar across the countries. Focus is placed on the involvement of patients in the development process, although the extent of participation varies. The experts collectively attribute great importance to PVGs overall, but in order to constantly adapt to medical progress and changing conditions, the focus in the future may be more on formats like living guidelines. Although there are different views on the mandatory development of PVGs, there is a consistent call for more transparency regarding the methodology used for PVGs.

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Guideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence. METHODS: A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593. FINDINGS: Of 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff. PATIENT-LEVEL: Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain. PROVIDER-LEVEL: Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

[Further Development and Interoperability in Oncological Care Structures, Quality Control and Research]. / Weiterentwicklung und Vernetzung der onkologischen Versorgungsstrukturen, der Qualitätssicherung und der Forschung.

How can we improve the interoperability of medical guidelines and the implementation and measurement of outcomes in medical health care for cancer patients as well as for care providers? This is the aim of the working group "Quality and Cross-linking". The following publication gives an overview of the targets reached in the development of guidelines together with quality indicators and documentation in cancer registries.

S3 guideline "actinic keratosis and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma" - update 2023, part 2: epidemiology and etiology, diagnostics, surgical and systemic treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), surveillance and prevention.

Actinic keratosis (AK) are common lesions in light-skinned individuals that can potentially progress to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Both conditions may be associated with significant morbidity and constitute a major disease burden, especially among the elderly. To establish an evidence-based framework for clinical decision making, the guideline "actinic keratosis and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma" was updated and expanded by the topics cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ (Bowen's disease) and actinic cheilitis. The guideline is aimed at dermatologists, general practitioners, ear nose and throat specialists, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists and radiation oncologists in hospitals and office-based settings, as well as other medical specialties, policy makers and insurance funds involved in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with AK and cSCC. A separate guideline exists for patients and their relatives. In this part, we will address aspects relating to epidemiology and etiology, diagnostics, surgical and systemic treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), surveillance and prevention.

Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

BACKGROUND: Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Guideline-Based Quality Indicators for Kidney and Bladder Cancer in Germany: Development and Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the development of the evidence-based (S3) clinical practice guidelines for kidney and bladder cancer by the German Guideline Program in Oncology, quality indicators (QIs) were defined to measure the quality of care. Based on these guidelines and QIs, the German Cancer Society (DKG) developed two new certification systems. The aim of this article is to show the process of development and implementation of QIs in certified cancer centres. METHODS: Based on strong recommendations of each guideline and an additional systematic literature review for national and international QIs, two sets of QIs were derived in a multistep standardized approach. These QIs were implemented in the centres in certification data sheets to measure their outcomes. First results of treatment years 2018 and 2019 are available. RESULTS: The final sets include 9 QIs for kidney cancer and 12 QIs for bladder cancer. Two-thirds of the QIs were transferred to the data sheets. In 2018 and 2019, the results of all but one QI are within the plausibility limits. From 2020 on, they are replaced by stricter target values that will challenge centres to improve their outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-derived QIs make relevant aspects of patient care measurable and consequently improvable. The first QI results are encouraging. However, the DKG certification system and the methods of measuring quality are under ongoing development. Systematic QI implementation and evaluation may help to generate broader databases and thus expand knowledge.

Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulators and Activators.

When Furchgott, Murad, and Ignarro were honored with the Nobel prize for the identification of nitric oxide (NO) in 1998, the therapeutic implications of this discovery could not be fully anticipated. This was due to the fact that available therapeutics like NO donors did not allow a constant and long-lasting cyclic guanylyl monophosphate (cGMP) stimulation and had a narrow therapeutic window. Now, 20 years later, the stimulator of soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC), riociguat, is on the market and is the only drug approved for the treatment of two forms of pulmonary hypertension (PAH/CTEPH), and a variety of other sGC stimulators and sGC activators are in preclinical and clinical development for additional indications. The discovery of sGC stimulators and sGC activators is a milestone in the field of NO/sGC/cGMP pharmacology. The sGC stimulators and sGC activators bind directly to reduced, heme-containing and oxidized, heme-free sGC, respectively, which results in an increase in cGMP production. The action of sGC stimulators at the heme-containing enzyme is independent of NO but is enhanced in the presence of NO whereas the sGC activators interact with the heme-free form of sGC. These highly innovative pharmacological principles of sGC stimulation and activation seem to have a very broad therapeutic potential. Therefore, in both academia and industry, intensive research and development efforts have been undertaken to fully exploit the therapeutic benefit of these new compound classes. Here we summarize the discovery of sGC stimulators and sGC activators and the current developments in both compound classes, including the mode of action, the chemical structures, and the genesis of the terminology and nomenclature. In addition, preclinical studies exploring multiple aspects of their in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo pharmacology are reviewed, providing an overview of multiple potential applications. Finally, the clinical developments, investigating the treatment potential of these compounds in various diseases like heart failure, diabetic kidney disease, fibrotic diseases, and hypertension, are reported. In summary, sGC stimulators and sGC activators have a unique mode of action with a broad treatment potential in cardiovascular diseases and beyond.

Guideline-based quality assurance: a conceptual framework for the definition of key elements.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) started developing a methodological framework for a guideline-based quality assurance (QA) scheme to improve cancer quality of care. During the first phase of the work, inconsistency emerged about the use of terminology for the definition, the conceptual underpinnings and the way QA relates to health questions that are answered in guidelines. The objective of this final of three articles is to propose a conceptual framework for an integrated approach to guideline and QA development and clarify terms and definitions for key elements. This work will inform the upcoming European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (ECICC). METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of 23 experts from key organizations in the fields of guideline development, performance measurement and quality assurance participated in a mixed method approach including face-to-face dialogue and several rounds of virtual meetings. Informed by results of a systematic literature review that indicated absence of an existing framework and practical examples, we first identified the relations of key elements in guideline-based QA and then developed appropriate concepts and terminology to provide guidance. RESULTS: Our framework connects the three key concepts of quality indicators, performance measures and performance indicators integrated with guideline development. Quality indicators are constructs used as a guide to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of the structure, process and outcomes of healthcare services; performance measures are tools that quantify or describe measurable elements of practice performance; and performance indicators are quantifiable and measurable units or scores of practice, which should be guided by guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistency in the way key terms of QA are used and defined has confused the field. Our conceptual framework defines the role, meaning and interactions of the key elements for improving quality in healthcare. It directly builds on the questions asked in guidelines and answered through recommendations. These findings will be applied in the forthcoming ECICC and for the future updates of ECIBC. These are large-scale integrated projects aimed at improving healthcare quality across Europe through the development of guideline-based QA schemes; this will help in implementing and improving our approach.

Bringing two worlds closer together: a critical analysis of an integrated approach to guideline development and quality assurance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives. METHODS: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants. RESULTS: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. DISCUSSION: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.

Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: A Synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines.

Description: The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers. Methods: An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or conditional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence. Recommendations: This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.

[Interdisciplinary S2k guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of vaginal carcinoma and its precursors-recommendations on surgical pathology for histopathological workup, diagnostics, and reporting]. / S2k-Leitlinie Diagnostik und Therapie des Vaginalkarzinoms und seiner Vorstufen ­ Anforderungen an die Pathologie.

Primary vaginal carcinoma is rare. There are two pathogenetic pathways, one associated with HPV high-risk infection and another one with inactivation of p53. Vaginal Paget's disease is rare and mostly associated with vulvar disease or represents intravaginal spread of associated locoregional cancer. Diagnostic vaginal biopsies should be examined by step sections on H&E. Sentinel lymph nodes should be processed completely using ultrastaging. Morphology-based prognostic factors with good clinical evidence are tumour stage and lymph node status. Molecular markers are not currently relevant for treatment decision and prognosis.

[Background, Necessity and Methodology of the S3 Guideline "Perioperative Management of Gastrointestinal Tumours (POMGAT)"]. / Hintergrund, Notwendigkeit und Methodik der S3-Leitlinie "Perioperatives Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT)".

Malignancies are among the most common diseases, especially in old age, and are responsible for 25% of all deaths in Germany. Especially carcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract can be cured in most cases only through extensive surgery with significant morbidity. About 25 years ago, the multimodal, perioperative Fast Track (FT) concept for reducing postoperative complications was introduced and additional elements were added in the following years. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that adherence to the key elements of more than 70% leads to reduction in postoperative adverse events as well as a shorter hospital stay and could be associated with an improved oncological outcome. Despite the high level of awareness and the proven advantages of the FT concept, the implementation and maintenance of the measures is difficult and results in an adherence of only 20 - 40%. There are many reasons for this: In addition to a lack of interdisciplinary and interprofessional cooperation and the time consuming and extended logistical efforts, limited human resources are often listed as one of the main causes. We took these aspects as an opportunity and started to develop a S3 guideline for perioperative treatment to accelerate the recovery of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. By creating a consensus- and evidence-based, multidisciplinary guideline, many of the problems listed above could probably be solved by optimising and standardising interdisciplinary care, which is particularly important in a setting with many different disciplines and their competing interests. Furthermore, the standardisation of the perioperative procedures will reduce the time and logistical effort. The presentation of the evidence allows increased transparency and justifies the additional personnel expenditure on hospital medicine and health insurance companies. In addition, the evidence-based quality indicators generated during the development of the guideline make it possible to include perioperative standards in certification systems and thus to measure and check the quality of perioperative care.

Monitoring and evaluation of breast cancer screening programmes: selecting candidate performance indicators.

BACKGROUND: In the scope of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) subgroup was tasked to identify breast cancer screening programme (BCSP) performance indicators, including their acceptable and desirable levels, which are associated with breast cancer (BC) mortality. This paper documents the methodology used for the indicator selection. METHODS: The indicators were identified through a multi-stage process. First, a scoping review was conducted to identify existing performance indicators. Second, building on existing frameworks for making well-informed health care choices, a specific conceptual framework was developed to guide the indicator selection. Third, two group exercises including a rating and ranking survey were conducted for indicator selection using pre-determined criteria, such as: relevance, measurability, accurateness, ethics and understandability. The selected indicators were mapped onto a BC screening pathway developed by the M&E subgroup to illustrate the steps of BC screening common to all EU countries. RESULTS: A total of 96 indicators were identified from an initial list of 1325 indicators. After removing redundant and irrelevant indicators and adding those missing, 39 candidate indicators underwent the rating and ranking exercise. Based on the results, the M&E subgroup selected 13 indicators: screening coverage, participation rate, recall rate, breast cancer detection rate, invasive breast cancer detection rate, cancers > 20 mm, cancers ≤10 mm, lymph node status, interval cancer rate, episode sensitivity, time interval between screening and first treatment, benign open surgical biopsy rate, and mastectomy rate. CONCLUSION: This systematic approach led to the identification of 13 BCSP candidate performance indicators to be further evaluated for their association with BC mortality.

Approaches of integrating the development of guidelines and quality indicators: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and quality indicators (for example as part of a quality assurance scheme) aim to improve health care delivery and health outcomes. Ideally, the development of quality indicators should be grounded in evidence-based, trustworthy guideline recommendations. However, anecdotally, guidelines and quality assurance schemes are developed independently, by different groups of experts who employ different methodologies. We conducted an extension and update of a previous systematic review to identify, describe and evaluate approaches to the integrated development of guidelines and related quality indicators. METHODS: On May 24th, 2019 we searched in Medline, Embase and CINAHL and included studies if they reported a methodological approach to guideline-based quality indicator development and were published in English, French, or German. RESULTS: Out of 16,034 identified records, we included 17 articles that described a method to integrate guideline recommendations development and quality indicator development. Added to the 13 method articles from original systematic review we included a total 30 method articles. We did not find any evaluation studies. In most approaches, guidelines were a source of evidence to inform the quality indicator development. The criteria to select recommendations (e.g. level of evidence or strength of the recommendation) and to generate, select and assess quality indicators varied widely. We found methodological approaches that linked guidelines and quality indicator development explicitly, however none of the articles reported a conceptual framework that fully integrated quality indicator development into the guideline process or where quality indicator development was part of the question formulation for developing the guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: In our systematic review we found approaches which explicitly linked guidelines with quality indicator development, nevertheless none of the articles reported a comprehensive and well-defined conceptual framework which integrated quality indicator development fully into the guideline development process.

Methods for Development of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer Guidelines: Recommendations in the Era of Guideline Transparency.

Neither breast cancer prevention and early-detection programs, nor their outcomes, are uniform across Europe. This article describes the rationale, methods, and process for development of the European Commission (EC) Initiative on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Guidelines. To be consistent with standards set by the Institute of Medicine and others, the EC followed 6 general principles. First, the EC selected, via an open call, a panel with broad representation of areas of expertise. Second, it ensured that all recommendations were supported by systematic reviews. Third, the EC separately considered important subgroups of women, included patient advocates in the guidelines development group, and focused on good communication to inform women's decisions. Fourth, EC rules on conflicts of interest were followed and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests. Fifth, it focused its recommendations on outcomes that matter to women, and certainty of the evidence is rated for each. Sixth, the EC elicited stakeholder feedback to ensure that the recommendations remain up to date and relevant to practice. This article describes the approach and highlights ways of disseminating and adapting the recommendations both within and outside Europe, using innovative information technology tools.

Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for the Development and Update of Clinical Practice Guidelines: Viewpoint.

Following the rapid spread of a new type of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), nearly all countries have introduced temporary restrictions affecting daily life, with "social distancing" as a key intervention for slowing the spread of the virus. Despite the pandemic, the development or actualization of medical guidelines, especially in the rapidly changing field of oncology, needs to be continued to provide up-to-date evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for shared decision making and maintaining the treatment quality for patients. In this viewpoint, we describe the potential strengths and limitations of online conferences for medical guideline development. This viewpoint will assist guideline developers in evaluating whether online conferences are an appropriate tool for their guideline conference and audience.

[Interdisciplinary S2k guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of uterine sarcomas-recommendations for surgical pathology]. / S2k-Leitlinie Diagnostik und Therapie uteriner Sarkome ­ Anforderungen an die Pathologie.

Uterine sarcomas represent a heterogeneous group of rare malignancies, derived from the myometrium, the endometrial stroma, and very rarely from the nonspecialized uterine soft tissue. The actual incidence is about 1.5 for Caucasian and 3.0 for Afro-American women. There is no grading system for leimoysarcoma defined by the WHO classification; however, if clinicians request, the FNCLCC grading can be specified in analogy to soft tissue sarcomas. Adenosarcomas must be distinguished from adenofibromas (the existence of which is questionable)-with the vast majority of these tumors being uterine adenosarcomas. Within adenosarcomas, deep myometrial invasion (>50%), sarcomatous overgrowth, and a high-grade heterologous component are associated with a higher recurrence rate and poor survival. The immunohistochemical panel represents a very helpful tool for distinguishing low-grade from high grade endometrial stromal sarcomas (ESS) and may be supplemented by molecular analyses. Steroid hormone receptor analysis should be performed for all ESS due to the possible therapeutic relevance. Undifferentiated uterine sarcomas represent a diagnosis of exclusion and have a very poor prognosis. Carcinosarcomas represent a special subtype of endometrial carcinomas and are in fact not uterine sarcomas. Uterine sarcomas may present substantial intratumoral heterogeneity and adequate embedding is mandatory. Lesions ≤2 cm in the largest dimension should be processed completely and larger tumors should be processed with one block per centimeter for the largest tumor dimension.

Quality assurance in melanoma care: guideline-based quality indicators for melanoma - implementation, evaluation and update process.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, an update of the German evidence-based (S3) guidelines "Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Melanoma" first issued in 2013 was published under the auspices of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The update also included a revision of existing guideline-based quality indicators (QIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a standardized multi-step process, the guideline-derived QIs were revised by a multidisciplinary, interprofessional working group based on the strong (level A) recommendations contained in the guideline update as well as on a systematic literature search for international indicators and on the outcomes of existing QIs as reported by certified German skin cancer centers. RESULTS: Based on the original set of twelve guideline-based QIs agreed upon in 2013, the working group developed an updated set containing nine indicators. Four QIs were kept unchanged; two were modified; two were removed; and three new QIs were added. Unlike 2013, the working group was now able to incorporate the outcomes of QIs previously implemented at the various skin cancer centers. CONCLUSIONS: Close cooperation between guideline group and certification commission allows for the implementation of guideline-based QIs in cancer care. Measured outcomes form the basis for updating both the guidelines and the QI development process. They provide information about the care of cancer patients in a real-world setting as well as on guideline adherence and the feasibility of QIs themselves. This is a dynamic process that can be described in a transparent manner and that requires regular updating.

S3 guideline for actinic keratosis and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma - short version, part 1: diagnosis, interventions for actinic keratoses, care structures and quality-of-care indicators.

Actinic keratoses (AK) are common lesions in light-skinned individuals that can potentially progress to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Both conditions may be associated with significant morbidity and constitute a major disease burden, especially among the elderly. To establish an evidence-based framework for clinical decision making, the guideline "actinic keratosis and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma" was developed using the highest level of methodology (S3) according to regulations issued by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). The guideline is aimed at dermatologists, general practitioners, ENT specialists, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists and radiation oncologists in hospitals and office-based settings as well as other medical specialties involved in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with AK and cSCC. The guideline is also aimed at affected patients, their relatives, policy makers and insurance funds. In the first part, we will address aspects relating to diagnosis, interventions for AK, care structures and quality-of-care indicators.