Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

Pioneering quality assessment in European cancer centers: a data analysis of the organization for European cancer institutes accreditation and designation program.

PURPOSE: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. METHODS: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. RESULTS: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. CONCLUSION: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step.

Actionable indicators for short and long term outcomes in rectal cancer.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Although patient and tumour characteristics are the most important determinants for outcomes in rectal cancer care, actionable factors for improving these are still unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgeon and hospital factors which can actually be influenced to improve on postoperative complications, disease-free survival (DFS) and relative survival (RS) in rectal cancer. METHODS: For 819 curatively operated rectal cancer patients, staged I-III and diagnosed between 2001 and 2005, data were derived from the population-based Cancer Registry of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre North East and supplemented by medical record examination. (Multilevel) Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the influence of relevant factors on postoperative complications and time from diagnosis to first treatment. Besides, Cox regression analysis for DFS and relative survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: Postoperative complications were dependent on type of surgery (p=0.024) and hospital volume (p=0.029). DFS was mainly influenced by stage (p<0.001) and time to treatment (p=0.018). Actionable indicators related to RS were type of surgery (p=0.011) and time to treatment (p=0.048). Time to treatment was found to be related to co-morbidity (p=0.007), preoperative radiotherapy (p=0.003) and referral for operation (p=0.048). Nevertheless, 18.2% unexplained variation in time to treatment remained on hospital level. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that optimal outcomes for rectal cancer care can be achieved by focusing on early detection and timely diagnosis, as well as adequate choice and timeliness of treatment in hospitals with optimal logistics for rectal cancer patients.

Towards quality, comprehensiveness and excellence. The accreditation project of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI).

There are important gaps in the health status of citizens across Europe, as measured by life expectancy, mortality or morbidity data (Report for the European Commission on the health status of the European Union, 2003). Among the main determinants of the major causes of mortality and morbidity, stated in this report, stands recurrently access to quality healthcare. There is a fundamental need to define quality indicators and set minimal levels of performance quality criteria for healthcare. There is a need to integrate research into healthcare and to provide patients with equity of access to such high quality care. Oncology is a specialty particularly suited to experimenting a first application of accreditation at European level. The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes is a growing network of cancer Centres in Europe. The focus of the OECI is to work with professionals and organisations with regard to prevention, care, research, development, patient's role and education. In order to fulfil its mission, the OECI initiated in 2002 an accreditation project with three objectives: * to develop a comprehensive accreditation system for oncology care, taking into account prevention, care, research, education and networking. * to set an updated database of cancer centres in Europe, with exhaustive information on their resources and activities (in care, research, education and management) * to develop a global labelling tool dedicated to comprehensive cancer centres in Europe, designating the various types of cancer structures, and the comprehensive cancer centres of reference and Excellence. An accreditation tool has been established, defining standards and criteria for prevention, care, research, education and follow-up activities. A quantitative database of cancer centres is integrated in the tool, with a questionnaire, that provides an overall view of the oncological landscape in OECI cancer centres in Europe. Data on infrastructures, resources and activities have been collected. This OECI accreditation tool will be launched in autumn 2008 for all cancer centres in Europe. It serves as a basis for the development of the labelling tool for cancer structures in Europe, with a focus on Comprehensiveness and Excellence labels. Quality assessment and improvement is a critical need in Europe and is addressed by the OECI for cancer care in Europe. Accreditation is a well accepted process and is feasible. Standards and criteria as well as an accreditation tool have been developed. The OECI questionnaire gives an accurate vision of cancer institutions throughout Europe, helping assessing the needs and providing standards. The accreditation project is a long-term complete and voluntary process with external and internal added value, an active process of sharing information and experience that should help the whole cancer community reach comprehensiveness and excellence.

Improvement of best practice in early breast cancer: actionable surgeon and hospital factors.

To identify actionable elements for improving best practice, this study examined the relative effects of patient, surgeon and hospital factors on surgical treatment variation of 2,929 early breast cancer patients, diagnosed from January 1998 to January 2002 in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre North-Netherlands. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze the hierarchically structured data. Apart from the patient level, 43.3% of the treatment variation was due to the hospital and 56.7% to the surgeon, after adjustment for patient characteristics. Although hospital factors like volume, teaching status, and management and policy contributed to this variation, multidisciplinary care seemed the most important actionable hospital factor. Although the surgeon was shown to be an important starting point for quality improvement, actionable elements seemed difficult to identify as factors like surgeon experience and volume were not conclusive and significant variance on this level remained (sigma2 = 0.149, SE 0.053). We conclude that multidisciplinary care can improve best practice and that further research into actionable surgeon factors is needed.

Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Consultant gynecologic oncologists from the regional Comprehensive Cancer Center assisted community gynecologists in the surgical treatment of patients with ovarian carcinoma when they were invited. For this report, the authors evaluated the effects of primary surgery by a gynecologic oncologist on treatment outcome. METHODS: The hospital files from 680 patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma who were diagnosed between 1994 and 1997 in the northern part of the Netherlands were abstracted. Treatment results were analyzed according to the operating physician's education by using survival curves and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Primary surgery was performed on 184 patients by gynecologic oncologists, and on 328 patients by general gynecologists. Gynecologic oncologists followed surgical guidelines more strictly compared with general gynecologists (patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] Stage I-II disease, 55% vs. 33% [P=0.01]; patients with FIGO Stage III disease, 60% vs. 40% [P=0.003]) and more often removed all macroscopic tumor in patients with FIGO Stage III disease (24% vs. 12%; P=0.02). When patients were stratified according to FIGO stage, the 5-year overall survival rate was 86% versus 70% (P=0.03) for patients with Stage I-II disease and 21% versus 13% (P=0.02) for patients with Stage III-IV disease who underwent surgery by gynecologic oncologists and general gynecologists, respectively. The hazards ratio for patients who underwent surgery by gynecologic oncologists was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.61-1.03; adjusted for patient age, disease stage, type of hospital, and chemotherapy); when patients age 75 years and older were excluded, the hazards ratio fell to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.54-0.94) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of patients with ovarian carcinoma by gynecologic oncologists occurred more often according to surgical guidelines, tumor removal more often was complete, and survival was improved.

Quality of adjuvant CMF chemotherapy for node-positive primary breast cancer: a population-based study.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant 'classical' oral cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) has long been the mainstay of adjuvant chemotherapy for premenopausal breast cancer patients. The Comprehensive Cancer Center North Netherlands (CCCN) breast cancer working group performed a retrospective audit of treatment guideline adherence and quality of CMF in hospitals in the CCCN area. METHODS: The CMF treatment data of 251 consecutive axillary lymph node-positive breast cancer patients <50 years old, diagnosed between 1993 and 1996, were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients (42%) completed adjuvant CMF without dose adjustment or delay. Overall median relative dose intensity (RDI) was 92.6 (IQR 85.5-97.7). Sixty patients (24%) had an RDI <85, and 7% had an RDI <65. Myelotoxicity was the main reason for reductions and delays. Of 176 irradiated patients, 96% received radiotherapy simultaneously with CMF. Median CMF dose intensity nor median duration differed between patients who underwent mastectomy, mastectomy and radiotherapy, or breast-conserving therapy. Radiotherapy did not influence the median RDI (94 without versus 92 with radiotherapy). G-CSF, administered at least once to 76 patients, did not result in a higher median RDI. Median RDI was slightly higher when >3 patients/year (P=0.014) were treated by one specialist or >10 patients classified for adjuvant chemotherapy yearly in a hospital (P=0.037). CONCLUSION: The adherence to CMF treatment guidelines was generally good. Simultaneous radiotherapy did not affect the median RDI of CMF. G-CSF had no impact on the median RDI but patient volume did influence the RDI.