Implementation of quality indicators for vulvar cancer in gynaecological cancer centres certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG).

PURPOSE: In 2018, the first guideline-based quality indicators (QI) for vulvar cancer were implemented in the data-sheets of certified gynaecological cancer centres. The certification process includes guideline-based QIs as a fundamental component. These indicators are specifically designed to evaluate the level of care provided within the centres. This article aims to give an overview of the developing process of guideline based-QIs for women with vulvar cancer and presents the QIs results from the certified gynaecological cancer centres. METHODS: The QIs were derived in a standardized multiple step process during the update of the 2015 S2k guideline "Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up Care of Vulvar Cancer and its Precursors" (registry-number: no. 015/059) and are based on strong recommendations. RESULTS: In total, there are eight guideline-based QIs for vulvar cancer. Four QIs are part of the certification process. In the treatment year 2021, 2.466 cases of vulvar cancer were treated in 177 centres. The target values in the centres for pathology reports on tumour resection and lymphadenectomy as well as sentinel lymph nodes have increased since the beginning of the certification process and have been above 90% over the past three treatment years (2019-2021). DISCUSSION: QIs based on strong guideline recommendations, play a crucial role in measuring and allowing to quantify essential aspects of patient care. By utilizing QIs, centres are able to identify areas for process optimization and draw informed conclusions. Over the years the quality of treatment of vulvar cancer patients measured by the QIs was improved. The certification system is continuously reviewed to enhance patient care even further by using the outcomes from QIs revaluation.

Assessing characteristics of populations seen at Commission on Cancer facilities using Pennsylvania linked data.

Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation certifies facilities provide quality care. We assessed differences among patients who do and do not visit CoC facilities using Pennsylvania Cancer Registry data linked to facility records for patients diagnosed with cancer between 2018 and 2019 (n = 87 472). Predicted probabilities from multivariable logistic regression indicated patients in the most advantaged Area Deprivation Index quartiles were more likely to visit CoC facilities (78.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.5% to 78.6%) compared with other quartiles. Urban patients (74.1%, 95% CI = 73.8% to 74.4%) were more likely than rural to be seen at a CoC facility (62.7%, 95% CI = 61.2% to 64.2%) as were Hispanic patients (88.0%, 95% CI = 86.7% to 89.3%) and non-Hispanic Black patients (79.1%, 95% CI = 78.1% to 80.0%) compared with White patients (72.0%, 95% CI = 71.7% to 72.4%). Differences in demographics suggest CoC data may underrepresent some groups, including low-income and rural patients.

[The oncology residency program in French overseas]. / L'internat d'oncologie en outre-mer français.

Once his specialty has been chosen, and according to his ranking, the new resident in oncology decides on the subdivision in which he wishes to be among the 28 existing subdivisions. Two concern overseas departments and territories: the Antilles-Guyana subdivision and the Indian Ocean subdivision. The oncology residency has its own particularities because of the demographic characteristics and epidemiology of cancers in these areas, but also because of a particular organization of care and university teaching. The training of residents in these subdivisions is little known. Over the past ten years, most of the residents have been trained in oncology-radiotherapy in these subdivisions and some of them in medical oncology. The residency program is however experiencing a revival in terms of university education in parallel with the development of technical and human equipment in the centres of these regions. This article details the training of residents in oncology in French overseas territories by contextualizing it with epidemiological data and the characteristics of the oncology care offer in these territories.

Surgical volume threshold to improve 3-year survival in designated cancer care hospitals in 2004-2012 in Japan.

In Japan, cancer care hospitals designated by the national government have a surgical volume requirement of 400 annually, which is not necessarily defined based on patient outcomes. This study aimed to estimate surgical volume thresholds that ensure optimal 3-year survival for three periods. In total, 186 965 patients who had undergone surgery for solid cancers in 66 designated cancer care hospitals in Osaka between 2004 and 2012 were examined using data from a population-based cancer registry. These hospitals were categorized by the annual surgical volume of each 50 surgeries (eg, 0-49, 50-99, and so on). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, we estimated the adjusted 3-year survival probability per surgical volume category for 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012. Using the joinpoint regression model that computes inflection points in a linear relationship, we estimated the points at which the trend of the association between surgical volume and survival probability changes, defining them as surgical volume thresholds. The adjusted 3-year survival ranges were 71.7%-90.0%, 68.2%-90.0%, and 79.2%-90.3% in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The surgical volume thresholds were identified at 100-149 in 2004-2006 and 2007-2009 and 200-249 in 2010-2012. The extents of change in the adjusted 3-year survival probability per increase of 50 surgical volumes were +4.00%, +6.88%, and +1.79% points until the threshold and +0.41%, +0.30%, and +0.11% points after the threshold in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The existing surgical volume requirements met our estimated thresholds. Surgical volume thresholds based on the association with patient survival may be used as a reference to validate the surgical volume requirement.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes of systemic cancer treatment delays in Filipino patients with solid tumor malignancy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A single tertiary center study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care during the Covid-19 pandemic has been challenging especially in a developing country such as the Philippines. Oncologists were advised to prioritize chemotherapy based on the absolute benefit that the patient may receive, which outbalances the risks of Covid-19 infection. The results of this study will allow re-examination of how to approach cancer care during the pandemic and ultimately, help optimize treatment recommendations during this crisis. AIM: This study described the factors contributing to treatment delays during the pandemic and their impact on disease progression. MATERIALS AND RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study was done in St. Luke's Medical Center, a private tertiary healthcare institution based in Metro Manila, Philippines, composed of two facilities in Quezon City and Global City. Patients with solid malignancy with ongoing systemic cancer treatment prior to the peak of the pandemic were identified. Clinical characteristics and treatment data were compared between those with delayed and continued treatments. Multivariate analysis was done to determine factors for treatment delays and association of delays with disease progression and Covid-19 infection. Of the 111 patients, 33% experienced treatment delays and 67% continued treatment during the pandemic. There was a higher percentage of patients on palliative intent who underwent treatment delay, and 64% of delays were due to logistic difficulties. Treatment delays were significantly associated with disease progression (p < .0001). There was no evidence of association between delay or continuation of treatment and risk of Covid-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in Covid-19 infection between those who delayed and continued treatment during the pandemic; however, treatment delays were associated with a higher incidence of disease progression. Our findings suggest that the risks of cancer progression due to treatment delays exceed the risks of Covid-19 infection in cancer patients implying that beneficial treatment should not be delayed as much as possible. Logistic hindrances were also identified as the most common cause of treatment delay among Filipino patients, suggesting that efforts should be focused into assistance programs that will mitigate these barriers to ensure continuity of cancer care services during the pandemic.

[National certification for gynecological cancer surgery]. / Certification nationale pour la chirurgie des cancers gynécologiques.

OBJECTIVE: In France, we are lacking an identified pathway for training in gynaecological cancer surgery. The four competent French learned societies: the SFOG, the CNGOF, the SFCO and the SCGP supported by the CNU of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, and UNICANCER agreed to materialize this course and attest it by a certification awarded by a national jury. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The national committee of certification in gynaecological oncology made up of ten members, representing the 6 concerned organizations, set itself five objectives: the definition of the eligibility criteria for training centres; the determination of a check-list to be filled by the candidate; the determination of a targeted curriculum for the training in gynecological oncological surgery; the determination of the assets necessary for the certification of a candidate already in practice; and the practical organization of the certification. RESULTS: Criteria for approval of centres for training included 150 gynaecological cancer cases per year, among which 100 excisional surgeries, including twenty advanced-stage ovarian cancers. For certification of candidate who followed the curriculum established by the committee or by validation of prior experience for an actual practitioner, a candidate must validate a logbook and fill out a checklist including four parts: theoretical and practical training; research and publications; teaching and subscription to a continuing education program. The accomplished elements of the logbook and the checklist will be evaluated by a score. The first certification session is planned for the end of 2021.

Strategies to ensure efficient laboratory functioning while navigating through the COVID-19 crisis in developing countries: An early experience from a tertiary care centre in India.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) is a zoonotic viral infection that originated in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. It was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization shortly thereafter. This pandemic is going to have a lasting impact on the functioning of pathology laboratories due to the frequent handling of potentially infectious samples by the laboratory personnel. To deal with this unprecedented situation, various national and international guidelines have been put forward outlining the precautions to be taken during sample processing from a potentially infectious patient. PURPOSE: Most of these guidelines are centered around laboratories that are a part of designated COVID 19 hospitals. However, proper protocols need to be in place in all laboratories, irrespective of whether they are a part of COVID 19 hospital or not as this would greatly reduce the risk of exposure of laboratory/hospital personnel. As part of a laboratory associated with a rural cancer hospital which is not a dedicated COVID 19 hospital, we aim to present our institute's experience in handling pathology specimens during the COVID 19 era. CONCLUSION: We hope this will address the concerns of small to medium sized laboratories and help them build an effective strategy required for protecting the laboratory personnel from risk of exposure and also ensure smooth and optimum functioning of the laboratory services.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Coverage of the hospital-based cancer registries and the designated cancer care hospitals in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based cancer registries were developed to describe and improve clinical care for cancer patients. We described the hospital-based cancer registry coverage as a reference for the users, including researchers, policymakers and clinicians. METHODS: The hospital-based cancer registry coverage was defined as the proportion of new cases registered in the hospital-based cancer registry to the National Cancer Registry as the denominator. To examine the coverage of respective cancer types, age groups and prefecture in the hospital-based cancer registry, cases were grouped based on the 10th International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and were compared with the published report of the National Cancer Registry in 2017. RESULTS: The overall hospital-based cancer registries coverage was 71.7%, and 52.5% of patients were treated at designated cancer care hospitals. The hospital-based cancer registries coverage and treatment rates at designated cancer care hospitals varied per cancer type, age group, and prefecture. The hospital-based cancer registries covered over 80% of the patients with cancers of the larynx, uterus, oesophagus, lip, oral cavity, pharynx and skin, whereas patients' coverage with thyroid cancer was relatively low. The hospital-based cancer registry coverage of young patients (<15 years) was >80%, whereas that for elderly patients (≥85 years) was <55%. The range of coverage in each prefecture was from 43.0 to 89.7%. Over 70% of the patients with cancers of the larynx, lip, oral cavity and pharynx were treated at designated cancer care hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital-based cancer registry coverage is ~70% of all cancers. Because the coverage differed across cancers and age groups, the respective target groups' analysis should consider this factor.

Assessing the immediate impact of COVID-19 on surgical oncology practice: Experience from an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Northeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical oncology practice are not yet quantified. The aim of this study was to measure the immediate impact of COVID-19 on surgical oncology practice volume. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients treated at an NCI-Comprehensive Cancer Center was performed. "Pre-COVID" era was defined as January-February 2020 and "COVID" as March-April 2020. Primary outcomes were clinic visits and operative volume by surgical oncology subspecialty. RESULTS: Abouyt 907 new patient visits, 3897 follow-up visits, and 644 operations occurred during the study period. All subspecialties experienced significant decreases in new patient visits during COVID, though soft tissue oncology (Mel/Sarc), gynecologic oncology (Gyn/Onc), and endocrine were disproportionately affected. Telehealth visits increased to 11.4% of all visits by April. Mel/Sarc, Gyn/Onc, and Breast experienced significant operative volume decreases during COVID (25.8%, p = 0.012, 43.6% p < 0.001, and 41.9%, p < 0.001, respectively), while endocrine had no change and gastrointestinal oncology had a slight increase (p = 0.823) in the number of cases performed. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are wide-ranging within surgical oncology subspecialties. The addition of telehealth is a viable avenue for cancer patient care and should be considered in surgical oncology practice.

Supportive care centers: definition of excellence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review is relevant because despite significant progress in oncology, a large proportion of patients with cancer still experience morbidity and symptoms, resulting from the cancer and/or its treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: The main theme concerns the definition of excellence of Supportive Care centers based on the indications of the Multinational Association Supportive Care Cancer (MASCC) because there are no data in literature on this topic. SUMMARY: Supportive care centers provide assistance to cancer patients suffering for anticancer treatments-related adverse effects. This leads to patient management with immediate evaluation and treatment of symptoms and therefore with improvement of quality of life and survival. In addition, there is less use of emergency room and hospitalizations with consequent savings of resources. According to MASCC evaluation criteria, some types of centers could be excellent in supportive care in cancer. Size, number of treated patients, or academic presence are not mandatory for the certification of excellence. However, centrality of patient and assessment of patient's needs, dedicated organizational models to evaluate and treat the adverse effects of anticancer treatments, dedicated activity and multidisciplinary staff, teaching programs, and adherence to guidelines are milestones for good clinical practices and consequently the centers that practice them represent the excellence in supportive care in cancer.

Impact of cancer center accreditation on outcomes of patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A SEER-Medicare analysis.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess variations in outcomes among patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at centers with varied accreditation status. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for HCC from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the linked SEER-Medicare database. Short- and long-term outcomes as well as expenditures associated with receipt of surgery were examined based on cancer center accreditation. RESULTS: Among 1390 patients, 46.1% (n = 641) were treated at unaccredited centers, 39.3% (n = 546) at CoC-accredited and 14.6% (n = 203) at NCI-designated centers. Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had lower odds of complications (OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.45-0.98) and 90-day mortality (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.11-0.85) after major liver resection compared with individuals treated at CoC-accredited centers. Receipt of surgery at NCI-designated hospitals (ref: CoC-accredited; HR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.66-0.99) was an independent predictor of improved survival. Medicare payments for liver resection were comparable at different accreditation status centers (NCI: $21,760 vs CoC: $24,059 vs unaccredited: $24,724, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing resection of HCC at NCI-designated hospitals had improved outcomes for the same level of Medicare expenditure compared with patients treated at CoC-accredited centers.

Is there a clinical benefit from prostate cancer center certification? An evaluation of functional and oncologic outcomes from 22,649 radical prostatectomy patients.

PURPOSE: To explore whether patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at a German Cancer Society (DKG: Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft) certified center (CC) have superior functional and surgical outcomes compared to patients undergoing radical prostatectomy at a non-certified hospital (nCC). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 22,649 patients treated between 2008 and 2017 and subsequently recovered at two rehabilitation clinics within 35 days of surgery were analyzed. Urine loss (24 h-pad-test), margin status, and nerve-sparing status at rehab admission were compared between CC and nCC patients, adjusting for age, histopathology (pT, pN, Gleason score), metastases (cM), Karnofsky performance status, time from surgery to rehabilitation, and insurance provider (statutory vs. private). RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of patients underwent surgery at a CC. Complete continence is more pronounced in patients treated in CC (16.6% vs. 24.4%, p < 0.001). In the adjusted models, incontinent patients from CC had less urine loss compared to patients from nCC (- 27.41% difference; 95% CI - 31.71% to - 22.84%, p < 0.001). CC patients were less likely to have positive resection margins (adjusted OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.76, p < 0.001) and more likely to have had a nerve-sparing procedure (adjusted OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated at certified centers presented to rehab with better urinary continence, higher nerve-sparing rates, and lower positive-margin rates. These results imply superior care at DKG certified centers.

Cohort Identification for Translational Bioinformatics Studies.

Translational studies for therapeutic development require cohort identification to identify appropriate biological materials from patients that can be utilized to test a specific hypothesis. Robust health information systems exist, but there are numerous challenges in accessing the information to select appropriate biological specimens needed for translational experiments. This chapter on methods describes the current standard process for cohort identification utilized by the Cutaneous Oncology Program and the Collaborative Data Services Core (CDSC) at Moffitt Cancer Center. The methods include utilization of graphical user interfaces coupled with database querying. As such, this chapter outlines the regulatory and procedural processes needed to utilize a health information management system to filter patients for cohort identification.

Implementing quality metrics in European Cancer Centers (ECCs).

PURPOSE: Since 2014, prostate cancer centers outside Germany (PCCoG) are eligible for certification according to the criteria set out by the German Cancer Society (DKG). These centers must fulfill the same requirements as their German counterparts. The article reports on the experiences of the first nine certified PCCoG, with a focus on their indicator results. METHOD: Following a descriptive analysis about primary case distribution, indicator definitions, and patient numbers, we compared indicator results for all 114 German PCC with all 9 PCCoG that have been certified for at least 3 years. Median centers' proportion was calculated and overall proportion for every indicator. Two-sided Cochran-Armitage tests were applied to detect trends over time. RESULTS: The number of primary cases increased for both groups steadily from 2015 to 2017 as did fulfillment of most other indicators including PCa guideline-derived indicators. Requirements that proved to be hard to fulfill for PCCoG initially included psycho-oncological services (POS) and social service counselling (SCC). Fulfillment of POS requirements improved in the following years after initial certification in PCCoG. SCC rates remain low in PCCoG due to the different health system structures. CONCLUSION: Acquiring a certificate by the DKG is achievable for PCCoG. Candidate centers need to be aware that substantial effort is required to fulfill the criteria, but once this is done, typically an improvement of indicators and an increase in patient numbers can be observed. Different health-care systems need to be taken into consideration and the certification requirements adapted in different areas to allow country-specific implementation.

Distress evaluation in a veteran affairs oncology clinic.

Distress in oncology patients (pts) has a negative impact on quality of life, survival, and healthcare satisfaction. Higher distress leads to lower compliance with treatment and follow-up [1-8]. The 2012 American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard of care for oncology pts included an assessment for distress [1]. A screening process for distress allows the healthcare team to address these issues early and refer to appropriate resources [2-9]. This project was initiated to meet National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and CoC standard of care, identify distress in veterans with cancer, and address these concerns. Patients who attended the Tuesday oncology clinic at the Dayton VAMC were given the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) during triage. The treating physician addressed problems identified. The Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Friedman test were used. DTs were completed by 296 pts from March to December 2016. Mean age was 68, 93% male, 83% white, 55% married, and 93% without PTSD. The distress level was not different from T1 through T3. Number of problems decreased over three time periods. Referrals to nutrition, mental health, and social work services increased over time. Although over time periods we found no decrease in distress scores, there was a decline in number of problems. The mean distress score at all but time 4 was < 4, which is considered mild distress. The mean distress score at T4 was 4.36 (n = 14), suggesting that the few pts who return to clinic more than three times may be experiencing more difficult personal and environmental circumstances. Patient sample ranged from those undergoing intensive cancer treatment (e.g., chemotherapy) to less intensive treatment (e.g., hormone injections) to those who completed treatment.

Quality assessment of cancer patient education materials: the current state of systemic therapy patient education in fourteen cancer centres across Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Most patients diagnosed with cancer are administered systemic therapy and these patients are counselled and given printed education (PE) materials. High rates of low health literacy highlight the need to evaluate the quality of these PE materials. METHODS: A current state assessment of the quality of PE materials was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Patient education leaders from 14 cancer centres submitted print materials on the topic of systemic cancer therapy to the assessment team. To report adherence to PE quality and health literacy best practices, the following validated measures were used: readability (FRY, SMOG and Flesch Reading Ease), understandability and actionability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)). Materials at grade level 6 or lower and with PEMAT scores greater than 80% were considered to meet health literacy best practices. RESULTS: A total of 1146 materials were submitted; 366 met inclusion criteria and 83 were selected for assessment. Most materials scored below the 80% target for understandability (x̄ = 73%, 31-100%) and actionability (x̄ = 68%, 20-100%), and above the recommended grade 6 readability level (x̄ = grade 9) meaning that the majority did not meet quality standards or best practices. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that there is significant opportunity to improve the quality of PE materials distributed by cancer centres. The quality of PE materials is a critical safety and equity consideration when these materials convey important safety and self-care directives.

Implementation of tobacco cessation services at a comprehensive cancer center: a qualitative study of oncology providers' perceptions and practices.

PURPOSE: To explore (1) perceptions of tobacco cessation for patients, (2) perceived role in addressing patients' tobacco use, (3) facilitators and barriers to providing cessation services, and (4) perceptions and use of tobacco cessation resources among oncology providers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 24 oncology providers at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Qualitative themes were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Participants (1) perceived smoking cessation's priority as low and/or dependent upon clinical factors, (2) described a passive role in addressing tobacco cessation, (3) described loss-framed versus gain-framed messaging when delivering cessation advice, (4) reported moderate self-efficacy in discussing and low self-efficacy in implementing cessation strategies, (5) described multi-level facilitators and barriers to patients' tobacco cessation, and (6) expressed high value for the cancer center's tobacco cessation service. CONCLUSION: Oncology providers in this study perceived patients' tobacco cessation as a low priority relative to providing direct cancer treatment and addressing acute complications. These findings indicate opportunities for training to increase delivery of evidence-based cessation advice and facilitate patients' engagement in cessation services. Provider trainings on embracing an active role in tobacco cessation, addressing multi-level barriers to patients' tobacco cessation, and using gain-framed messaging should be implemented. This has the potential to improve cancer patients' treatment outcomes.