RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The PORTEC-2 update suggested that substantial lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) and abnormal p53 expression (p53abnl) predict for poorer outcomes and that these patients should be treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). We aim to determine if patients with these risk factors who undergo a lymph node (LN) assessment show similar outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 126 patients with FIGO 2009 stage IA grade 3, stage IB grade 1-2, and stage IIIC (positive LN but no other stage II/III risk factors) endometrioid endometrial cancer who underwent LN assessment. Local (LR), regional recurrences (RR), and distant metastases were analyzed using competing risk methods, and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 37.2 months. OS was significantly different between patients with and without p53abnl expression (16.7% versus 3.1% deceased), and between patients with and without LVSI (11.1% versus 1.5% deceased; p < 0.01 for both). The 2-year cumulative incidence of LR for patients with p53abnl versus wild type p53 and LVSI versus no LVSI was 11.1% (95% CI 0-25.6) versus 2.2% (95% CI 0-5.25; p = 0.04), and 11.4% (95% CI 2.0-20.9) versus 0%, respectively (p < 0.01). The 2-year cumulative RR in patients with LVSI versus no LVSI was 6.9% (95% CI 0-14.4) versus 0% (p = 0.05). No patients who completed pelvic RT experienced an in-field recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite LN assessment, patients with high-intermediate risk early-stage or stage IIIC (with positive lymph nodes only but no other stage II or III risk factors) endometrial cancer with p53abnl expression and/or LVSI have worse outcomes. These patients may derive benefit from intensification with EBRT to improve local and pelvic control.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Development and implementation of robust reporting processes to systematically provide quality data to care teams in a timely manner is challenging. National cancer quality measures are useful, but the manual data collection required is resource intensive, and reporting is delayed. We designed a largely automated measurement system with our multidisciplinary cancer care programs (CCPs) to identify, measure, and improve quality metrics that were meaningful to the care teams and their patients. METHODS: Each CCP physician leader collaborated with the cancer quality team to identify metrics, abiding by established guiding principles. Financial incentive was provided to the CCPs if performance at the end of the study period met predetermined targets. Reports were developed and provided to the CCP physician leaders on a monthly or quarterly basis, for dissemination to their CCP teams. RESULTS: A total of 15 distinct quality measures were collected in depth for the first time at this cancer center. Metrics spanned the patient care continuum, from diagnosis through end of life or survivorship care. All metrics improved over the study period, met their targets, and earned a financial incentive for their CCP. CONCLUSION: Our quality program had three essential elements that led to its success: (1) engaging physicians in choosing the quality measures and prespecifying goals, (2) using automated extraction methods for rapid and timely feedback on improvement and progress toward achieving goals, and (3) offering a financial team-based incentive if prespecified goals were met.