RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Institutos de Câncer , Neoplasias/terapia , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Academias e Institutos/normas , Academias e Institutos/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Institutos de Câncer/organização & administração , Institutos de Câncer/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos de Coortes , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Humanos , Oncologia/normas , Oncologia/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/normas , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Assistência Centrada no Paciente/organização & administração , Assistência Centrada no Paciente/normas , Assistência Centrada no Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Translacional Biomédica/métodos , Pesquisa Translacional Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Translacional Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched a program for accreditation and designation (A&D) of cancer centers in Europe based on voluntary participation in 2008. In 2012, the Italian Ministry of Health decided to fund cancer centers in Italy, members of the Alleanza Contro il Cancro (ACC), to go through the OECI accreditation program. Ten centers participated in the program and 10 completed the full cycle of the OECI A&D process in consecutive series over a 2-year period. The process was successfully completed within the planned timeline and the overall findings were presented to the Italian Ministry of Health and representatives of all the participating centers in November 2015. The program had a considerable team-building effect, which will likely continue as the improvement plans are implemented. Centers fed back to OECI that the A&D program had led to better formal organization of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and cancer care pathways, and had helped them to harmonize the integration of research into clinical practice. Centers also concluded that they benefited from recognition through an international accreditation system, and that it had led to them developing better patient information and involvement. The importance of the improvement plans that each center had to produce following the audit reviews cannot be underestimated. The OECI concludes that implementation of the A&D program at the national level is feasible despite national peculiarities related to health planning and organization in each member state. This is a good example of an EU project working well, with member states helping each other and learning from best practice, to improve the overall quality of cancer care and research and to establish consistency. The initial accreditation is the first part of an ongoing process of improving comprehensive cancer care, integrating bench to bedside.
Assuntos
Acreditação , Institutos de Câncer/normas , Comunicação Interdisciplinar , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente , Melhoria de Qualidade , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Cooperação Internacional , Itália , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/terapiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Institutos de Câncer/normas , Oncologia/normas , Neoplasias/terapia , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde , Acreditação , Institutos de Câncer/organização & administração , Procedimentos Clínicos , Europa (Continente) , Oncologia/educação , Oncologia/organização & administração , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
AIM: The safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of sorafenib plus docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory cancer were investigated in a phase I, dose-escalation trial. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients in four cohorts received docetaxel on day 1 (cohorts 1 and 4: 75 mg/m2; cohorts 2 and 3: 100 mg/m2) plus sorafenib on days 2-19 (cohorts 1 and 2: 200 mg twice-daily (bid); cohorts 3 and 4: 400 mg bid) in 21-day cycles. RESULTS: Most common adverse events (AEs) (grade 3-5) included neutropenia (89%), leucopaenia (81%), hand-foot skin reaction (30%) and fatigue (30%). The most common drug-related AEs leading to dose reduction/interruption or permanent discontinuation were dermatologic (41%), gastrointestinal (26%) and constitutional (22%). Coadministration of sorafenib altered the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel. On average, docetaxel area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-24) increased by 5% (cohort 1), 54% (cohort 2), 36% (Cohort 3) and 80% (cohort 4) with docetaxel plus sorafenib, while C(max) increased by 16-32%, independent of sorafenib/docetaxel doses. Three of 25 evaluable patients (11%) had partial responses; 14 (52%) had stable disease. CONCLUSION: Dose-limiting dermatologic AEs were more common than expected for either therapy alone. A starting dose of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus sorafenib 400mg bid (with dose reductions for dermatological toxicities) is proposed for phase II.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/farmacocinética , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Benzenossulfonatos/administração & dosagem , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Piridinas/administração & dosagem , Taxoides/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Benzenossulfonatos/efeitos adversos , Benzenossulfonatos/farmacocinética , Estudos de Coortes , Progressão da Doença , Docetaxel , Esquema de Medicação , Resistencia a Medicamentos Antineoplásicos/efeitos dos fármacos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias/patologia , Niacinamida/análogos & derivados , Compostos de Fenilureia , Piridinas/efeitos adversos , Piridinas/farmacocinética , Sorafenibe , Taxoides/efeitos adversos , Taxoides/farmacocinética , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Even though the increasing incidence of cancer is mainly a consequence of a population with a longer life span, part of this augmentation is related to the increasing prevalence of patients living with a chronic cancer disease. To fight the problem, improved preventive strategies are mandatory in combination with an innovative health care provision that is driven by research. To overcome the weakness of translational research the OECI is proposing a practical approach as part of a strategy foreseen by the EUROCAN+PLUS feasibility study, which was launched by the EC in order to identify mechanisms for the coordination of cancer research in Europe.
Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Institutos de Câncer , Comportamento Cooperativo , União Europeia , Neoplasias , Institutos de Câncer/tendências , Doença Crônica , Humanos , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias/terapia , Organizações sem Fins Lucrativos , PrevalênciaRESUMO
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.