Evaluation of four comorbidity indices and Charlson comorbidity index adjustment for colorectal cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer survival is related not only to primary malignancy but also to concomitant nonmalignant diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic capacity of four comorbidity indices [the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), the Elixhauser method, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) comorbidity index, and the Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27)] for both cancer-related and all-cause mortality among colorectal cancer patients. A modified version of the CCI adapted for colorectal cancer patients was also built. METHODS: The study population comprised 468 cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2010 at a community hospital. Data were prospectively collected and abstracted from patients' clinical records. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate logistic regression models were performed for survival and risk of death analysis. RESULTS: Only moderate or severe renal disease [hazard ratio (HR) 2.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-6.63] and AIDS (HR 3.27, 95% CI 1.23-8.68) were independently associated with cancer-specific mortality, with a population attributable risk of 5.18 and 4.36%, respectively. For each index, the highest comorbidity burden was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (NIA/NCI: HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.14-4.01; Elixhauser: HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.09-1.42; ACE-27: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.07-1.23; CCI: HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.05-1.42) and cancer-specific survival. The modified version of the CCI resulted in a higher predictive power compared with other indices studied (cancer-specific mortality HR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.37-4.08). CONCLUSIONS: The comorbidity assessment tools provided better prognostic prevision of prospective outcome of colorectal cancer patients than single comorbid conditions.

Preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a comparative study of quality control adherence at two cancer hospitals in Spain and Poland.

BACKGROUND: We performed a clinical audit of preoperative rectal cancer treatment at two European radiotherapy centres (Poland and Spain). The aim was to independently verify adherence to a selection of indicators of treatment quality and to identify any notable inter-institutional differences. METHODS: A total of 162 patients, in Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) 68 and in Greater Poland Cancer Centre (GPCC) 94, diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer and treated with preoperative radiotherapy or radio-chemotherapy were included in retrospective study. A total of 7 quality control measures were evaluated: waiting time, multidisciplinary treatment approach, portal verification, in vivo dosimetry, informed consent, guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, and patient monitoring during treatment. RESULTS: Several differences were observed. Waiting time from pathomorphological diagnosis to initial consultation was 31 (ICO) vs. 8 (GPCC) days. Waiting time from the first visit to the beginning of the treatment was twice as long at the ICO. At the ICO, 82% of patient experienced treatment interruptions. The protocol for portal verification was the same at both institutions. In vivo dosimetry is not used for this treatment localization at the ICO. The ICO utilizes locally-developed guidelines for diagnostics and therapy, while the GPCC is currently developing its own guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: An independent external clinical audit is an excellent approach to identifying and resolving deficiencies in quality control procedures. We identified several procedures amenable to improvement. Both institutions have since implemented changes to improve quality standards. We believe that all radiotherapy centres should perform a comprehensive clinical audit to identify and rectify deficiencies.

Clinical quality standards for radiotherapy.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The technological progress that is currently being witnessed in the areas of diagnostic imaging, treatment planning systems and therapeutic equipment has caused radiotherapy to become a high-tech and interdisciplinary domain involving staff of various backgrounds. This allows steady improvement in therapy results, but at the same time makes the diagnostic, imaging and therapeutic processes more complex and complicated, requiring every stage of those processes to be planned, organized, controlled and improved so as to assure high quality of services provided. The aim of this paper is to present clinical quality standards for radiotherapy as developed by the author. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In order to develop the quality standards, a comparative analysis was performed between European and Polish legal acts adopted in the period of 1980-2006 and the universal industrial ISO 9001:2008 standard, defining requirements for quality management systems, and relevant articles published in 1984-2009 were reviewed, including applicable guidelines and recommendations of American, international, European and Polish bodies, such as the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) on quality assurance and management in radiotherapy. RESULTS: As a result, 352 quality standards for radiotherapy were developed and categorized into the following three groups: 1 - organizational standards; 2 - physico-technical standards and 3 - clinical standards. CONCLUSION: Proposed clinical quality standards for radiotherapy can be used by any institution using ionizing radiation for medical purposes. However, standards are of value only if they are implemented, reviewed, audited and improved, and if there is a clear mechanism in place to monitor and address failure to meet agreed standards.

Quality management system in radiotherapy in the light of regulations applicable in Poland.

The need to establish conditions for safe irradiation was noted in Poland back in 1986 in the Atomic Law, but for over 16 years no regulations regarding this aspect were passed. The radiological incident in Bialystok (Poland) in 2001 undeniably accelerated the implementation of new legal regulations. Nevertheless, in the absence of national guidelines until 2002, most health care institutions resorted to the quality management system (QMS) model proposed by the ISO norm 9001:2000. Eventually, practice proved the theory and the aforementioned model was also implemented into Polish acts of law defining basic requirements for QMS in radiotherapy. The aim of this work is to review current national regulations regarding QMS in radiotherapy, in particular those referring to standard procedures, the establishment of a commission for procedures and performance of external and internal clinical audits in oncological radiotherapy, as well as to present the process of their implementation into the practice of health care institutions.

Erratum to "Identification of patient's requirements in quality management system implemented in health care institutions" [Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 17 (2012) 50-53].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2011.10.006.].

Organizational, technical, physical and clinical quality standards for radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Indisputably, radiotherapy has become an entirely interdisciplinary specialty. This situation requires efficient planning, verification, monitoring, quality control and constant improvement of all aspects of service delivery, referring both to patients' (including diagnosis, prescription and method of treatment, its justification, realization and follow up) and organizational, technical and physics matters. AIM: The aim of this work was to develop technical, physics and clinical quality standards for radiotherapy. This paper presents chosen standards for each of the aforementioned category. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the development of quality standards the comparison analysis of EU and Polish acts of law passed between 1980 and 2010 was conducted, the universal industrial ISO norm 9001:2008 referring to quality management system was reviewed. Recommendations of this norm were completed with detailed quality standards based on the author's 11 year work experience and the review of articles on quality assurance and quality control standards for radiotherapy published between 1984 and 2009 and the review of current recommendations and guidelines of American, International, European and National bodies (associations, societies, agencies such as AAPM, ESTRO, IAEA, and OECI) for quality assurance and quality management in radiotherapy. RESULTS: As a result 352 quality standards for radiotherapy were developed and categorized into the following three groups: (1) organizational standards, (2) physics and technical standards and (3) clinical standards. CONCLUSIONS: Proposed quality standards for radiotherapy, can be used by any institution using ionizing radiation for medical procedures. Nevertheless standards are only of value if they are implemented, reviewed, audited and improved and if there is a clear mechanism in place to monitor and address failure to meet agreed standards.

Comparison of curricula in radiation technology in the field of radiotherapy in selected European Union countries.

BACKGROUND: Radiation technology is a discipline of medical science which deals with diagnostics, imaging and radiotherapy, that is treatment by ionizing radiation. AIM: To present and compare the existing curricula of radiation technology in selected EU countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research work done for the purpose of the comparative analysis was based on the methods of diagnostic test and document analysis. RESULTS: The comparison of curricula in selected countries, namely Austria, France, the Netherlands and Poland, showed that admission criteria to radiation technology courses are varied and depend on regulations of respective Ministries of Health. The most restrictive conditions, including written tests in biology, chemistry and physics, and psychometric test, are those in France. Contents of basic and specialist subject groups are very similar in all the countries. The difference is in the number of ECT points assigned to particular subjects and the number of course hours offered. The longest practical training is provided in the Netherlands and the shortest one in Poland. The duration of studies in the Netherlands is 4 years, while in Poland it is 3 years. Austria is the only country to offer extra practical training in quality management. CONCLUSION: Graduates in the compared EU countries have similar level of qualifications in the fields of operation of radiological equipment, radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, foreign language and specialist terminology in the field of medical and physical sciences, general knowledge of medical and physical sciences, and detailed knowledge of radiation technology.

Identification of patient's requirements in quality management system in health care institutions.

AIM: To present the solutions implemented in health care institution in the context of identification of patient's requirements, and evaluation of the level of patients' satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of ISO norm 9001:2008 based on the experience of GPCC. BACKGROUND: The fundamental mechanisms behind the free market, such as competition, start applying also to the public health sector. Health service providers are gradually realising that patients are actual clients of health care institutions, with physicians, nurses, supporting personnel, registration officers and other staff responding to patients demand for medical and auxiliary services (e.g. exam registration, provision of information). MATERIAL AND METHODS: PN-EN ISO 9001:2009 "Quality Management Systems. Requirements", relevant literature and documentation of quality management system from the GPCC. The review of relevant literature and legal requirements; interpretation of provisions in relation to the functioning of health care institutions. RESULTS: Model of identification of patient's requirements and satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of ISO 9001:2008 has been elaborated and implemented in the GPCC. CONCLUSION: The identification of patient's requirements is much more complicated than evaluating the same parameters in manufacturing companies. In the context of medical services one should be aware of the subjectivity of patient's feelings, the psycho-social status and the general state of health during his or her treatment. Therefore, the identification of patient's requirements and satisfaction must be carefully thought out, implemented and regularly improved.

Cost-effectiveness of the modifications in the quality assurance system in radiotherapy in the example of in-vivo dosimetry.

PURPOSE: To present the methodology for the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of the quality assurance protocol modifications associated with increasing demands on accuracy and reliability in radiotherapy and to present results on cost-effectiveness of in-vivo dosimetry as the chosen example of a technical procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In-vivo dosimetry was used as an example of a quality assurance procedure, whose modifications have an impact on several procedures in the QA system and thus on the cost of radiotherapy. An analysis of 6864 patients, treated between 2001 and 2005 for tumours in the head and neck, breast, pelvis, or lung, was performed. The quality of radiotherapy was expressed as the accuracy of dose delivery and the cost was estimated from labour, equipment and materials. RESULTS: Modifications implemented in the quality assurance protocol have gradually improved the quality of irradiation. Mean deviations between measured and calculated doses, recorded for several groups of treatment sites, were reduced from -1.5% to 0.5%, 3.4% to 1.4%, 3.9% to 0.1% and -2.1% to 1.8% for head and neck, breast, pelvis and lung respectively. The standard deviations of the measured values decreased also consistently. Total monthly cost in radiotherapy (related to in-vivo dosimetry) increased from euro 4376 to euro 10,696 while the unitary cost of radiotherapy procedures remained at the same level. The predominant cost component of in-vivo dosimetry was labour, limited at first to physics staff and later extended to quality assurance personnel and technicians. CONCLUSION: The application of the presented methodology revealed cost-effectiveness relationships in tested technical procedures.