TUBectomy with delayed oophorectomy as an alternative to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in high-risk women to assess the safety of prevention: the TUBA-WISP II study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy has gained interest for individuals at high risk for tubo-ovarian cancer as there is compelling evidence that especially high-grade serous carcinoma originates in the fallopian tubes. Two studies have demonstrated a positive effect of salpingectomy on menopause-related quality of life and sexual health compared with standard risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy is non-inferior to the current standard salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer among individuals at high inherited risk. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that postponement of oophorectomy after salpingectomy, to the age of 40-45 (BRCA1) or 45-50 (BRCA2) years, compared with the current standard salpingo-oophorectomy at age 35-40 (BRCA1) or 40-45 (BRCA2) years, is non-inferior in regard to tubo-ovarian cancer risk. TRIAL DESIGN: In this international prospective preference trial, participants will choose between the novel salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy and the current standard salpingo-oophorectomy. Salpingectomy can be performed after the completion of childbearing and between the age of 25 and 40 (BRCA1), 25 and 45 (BRCA2), or 25 and 50 (BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers) years. Subsequent oophorectomy is recommended at a maximum delay of 5 years beyond the upper limit of the current guideline age for salpingo-oophorectomy. The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline age, which is also the recommended age for salpingo-oophorectomy within the study, is 35-40 years for BRCA1, 40-45 years for BRCA2, and 45-50 years for BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Premenopausal individuals with a documented class IV or V germline pathogenic variant in the BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D gene who have completed childbearing are eligible for participation. Participants may have a personal history of a non-ovarian malignancy. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The primary outcome is the cumulative tubo-ovarian cancer incidence at the target age: 46 years for BRCA1 and 51 years for BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. SAMPLE SIZE: The sample size to ensure sufficient power to test non-inferiority of salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy compared with salpingo-oophorectomy requires 1500 BRCA1 and 1500 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Participant recruitment is expected to be completed at the end of 2026 (total recruitment period of 5 years). The primary outcome is expected to be available in 2036 (minimal follow-up period of 10 years). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04294927.

Variation in Integrated Head and Neck Cancer Care: Impact of Patient and Hospital Characteristics.

Background: Monitoring and effectively improving oncologic integrated care requires dashboard information based on quality registrations. The dashboard includes evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) that measure quality of care. This study aimed to assess the quality of current integrated head and neck cancer care with QIs, the variation between Dutch hospitals, and the influence of patient and hospital characteristics. Methods: Previously, 39 QIs were developed with input from medical specialists, allied health professionals, and patients' perspectives. QI scores were calculated with data from 1,667 curatively treated patients in 8 hospitals. QIs with a sample size of >400 patients were included to calculate reliable QI scores. We used multilevel analysis to explain the variation. Results: Current care varied from 29% for the QI about a case manager being present to discuss the treatment plan to 100% for the QI about the availability of a treatment plan. Variation between hospitals was small for the QI about patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (adherence: 95%, range 88%-98%), but large for the QI about malnutrition screening (adherence: 50%, range 2%-100%). Higher QI scores were associated with lower performance status, advanced tumor stage, and tumor in the oral cavity or oropharynx at the patient level, and with more curatively treated patients (volume) at hospital level. Conclusions: Although the quality registration was only recently launched, it already visualizes hospital variation in current care. Four determinants were found to be influential: tumor stage, performance status, tumor site, and volume. More data are needed to assure stable results for use in quality improvement.

Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example. METHODS: A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Questions focussed on: "Why," "On what aspects" and "How" do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes? RESULTS: All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self-reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient-reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan-Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1-4 times a year sent by e-mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.

[Better multidisciplinary team meetings are linked to better care]. / Beter multidisciplinair overleg past bij betere zorg.

Discussing a patient in an oncology multidisciplinary team meeting (MTM) increases the value of the quality of the treatment chosen. MTMs are increasingly mentioned in guidelines and indicator sets. Based on literature review and observations, the Comprehensive Cancer Centre Netherlands (CCCNL), in collaboration with IQ Healthcare and the Department of Medical Oncology of the UMC St Radboud Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has conducted research into the quality criteria for a good MTM. Two of our studies show that the organisation of MTMs can be significantly improved. Based on the results, we developed a checklist to accomplish this. The most significant areas of improvement for optimising the organisation of MTMs are: (a) the presence of specialists from all relevant disciplines; (b) a capable chairman who promotes the efficiency of the MTM; and (c) the reduction of intruding factors, such as mobile phones and participants who walk in and out.

Improving patient-centeredness of fertility care using a multifaceted approach: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Beside traditional outcomes of safety and (cost-)effectiveness, the Institute of Medicine states patient-centeredness as an independent outcome indicator to evaluate the quality of healthcare. Providing patient-centered care is important because patients want to be heard for their ideas and concerns. Healthcare areas associated with high emotions and intensive treatment periods could especially benefit from patient-centered care. How care can become optimally improved in patient-centeredness is unknown. Therefore, we will conduct a study in the context of Dutch fertility care to determine the effects of a multifaceted approach on patient-centeredness, patients' quality of life (QoL) and levels of distress. Our aims are to investigate the effectiveness of a multifaceted approach and to identify determinants of a change in the level of patient-centeredness, patients' QoL and distress levels. This paper presents the study protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: In a cluster-randomized trial in 32 Dutch fertility clinics the effects of a multifaceted approach will be determined on the level of patient-centeredness (Patient-centredness Questionnaire - Infertility), patients' QoL (FertiQoL) and levels of distress (SCREENIVF). The multifaceted approach includes audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and patient-mediated interventions. Potential determinants of a change in patient-centeredness, patients' QoL and levels of distress will be collected by an addendum to the patients' questionnaire and a professionals' questionnaire. The latter includes the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument about the clinic's culture as a possible determinant of an increase in patient-centered care. DISCUSSION: The study is expected to yield important new evidence about the effects of a multifaceted approach on levels of patient-centeredness, patients' QoL and distress in fertility care. Furthermore, determinants associated with a change in these outcome measures will be studied. With knowledge of these results, patient-centered care and thus the quality of healthcare can be improved. Moreover, the results of this study could be useful for similar initiatives to improve the quality of care delivery. The results of this project are expected at the end of 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicialtrials.gov NCT01481064.

Follow-up of abnormal or inadequate cervical smears using two guidance systems: RCT on effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: To improve follow-up compliance after an initial inadequate or abnormal cervical smear, two follow-up guidance systems were tested for effectiveness. A comprehensive system (cytopathology laboratory monitored the follow-up of all abnormal and inadequate smears) was compared to a selective system (monitoring was left to the smear taker; laboratory acted as a safety net). METHODS: In an RCT on all family practices (N = 171) in the catchment areas of two cytopathology laboratories (Nijmegen region, The Netherlands, 1998-2000), practices were allocated at random to one of the follow-up guidance systems. All women included were registered at the practices, invited to the national screening program and had abnormal or inadequate smears. Measurements comprised of (1) follow-up compliance at baseline and 1 year after the initial smear and (2) diagnostic outcome of the follow-up smear. RESULTS: During the study period, 132 practices sent their cervical smears to the laboratories. The comprehensive system covered 1226 women, the selective 1034. In the comprehensive system, the increase in follow-up compliance for initial inadequate and slightly abnormal smears was significantly higher (8.9%) than in the selective one, which implied an extra detection of eleven, more serious, abnormalities per 1000 women. CONCLUSION: The comprehensive system was more effective than the selective and is suitable for use on a larger scale.