[Does structural and process quality of certified prostate cancer centers result in better medical care?]

[Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer-data from 17,149 patients from 125 certified centers]

BACKGROUND

In addition to erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence is the most common functional limitation after radical prostatectomy (RPE) for prostate cancer (PCa). The German S3 guideline recommends informing patients about possible effects of the therapy options, including incontinence. However, only little data on continence from routine care in German-speaking countries after RPE are currently available, which makes it difficult to inform patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to present data on the frequency and severity of urinary incontinence after RPE from routine care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information from the PCO (Prostate Cancer Outcomes) study is used, which was collected between 2016 and 2022 in 125 German Cancer Society (DKG)-certified prostate cancer centers in 17,149 patients using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26). Changes in the "incontinence" score before (T0) and 12 months after RPE (T1) and the proportion of patients who used pads, stratified by age and risk group, are reported.

RESULTS

The average score for urinary incontinence (value range: 0-worst possible to 100-best possible) was 93 points at T0 and 73 points 12 months later. At T0, 97% of the patients did not use a pad, compared to 56% at T1. 43% of the patients who did not use a pad before surgery used at least one pad a day 12 months later, while 13% use two or more. The proportion of patients using pads differs by age and risk classification.

CONCLUSION

The results provide a comprehensive insight into functional outcome 12 months after RPE and can be taken into account when informing patients.

Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in Certified Centers: Results of a Large German Registry Study Focusing on Long-Term Survival

(1) Background: The WiZen study is the largest study so far to analyze the effect of the certification of designated cancer centers on survival in Germany. This certification program is provided by the German Cancer Society (GCS) and represents one of the largest oncologic certification programs worldwide. Currently, about 50% of colorectal cancer patients in Germany are treated in certified centers. (2) Methods: All analyses are based on population-based clinical cancer registry data of 47.440 colorectal cancer (ICD-10-GM C18/C20) patients treated between 2009 and 2017. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OAS) after treatment at certified cancer centers compared to treatment at other hospitals; the secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. Statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression. (3) Results: Treatment at certified hospitals was associated with significant advantages concerning 5-year overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89, 0.96, adjusted for a broad range of confounders) for colon cancer patients. Concentrating on UICC stage I-III patients, for whom curative treatment is possible, the survival benefit was even larger (colon cancer: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84, 0.94; rectum cancer: HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84, 0.97). (4) Conclusions: These results encourage future efforts for further implementation of the certification program. Patients with colorectal cancer should preferably be directed to certified centers.

Is treatment in certified cancer centers related to better survival in patients with pancreatic cancer? Evidence from a large German cohort study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer patients in certified cancer centers, that meet specific quality standards in term of structures and procedures of medical care, is a national treatment goal in Germany. However, convincing evidence that treatment in certified cancer centers is associated with better outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer is still missing.

METHODS

We used patient-specific information (demographic characteristics, diagnoses, treatments) from German statutory health insurance data covering the period 2009-2017 and hospital characteristics from the German Standardized Quality Reports. We investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals with and without pancreatic cancer center certification by the German Cancer Society (GCS) using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression with shared frailty.

RESULTS

The final sample included 45,318 patients with pancreatic cancer treated in 1,051 hospitals (96 GCS-certified, 955 not GCS-certified). 5,426 (12.0%) of the patients were treated in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers. Patients treated in certified and non-certified hospitals had similar distributions of age, sex, and comorbidities. Median survival was 8.0 months in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers and 4.4 months in non-certified hospitals. Cox regression adjusting for multiple patient and hospital characteristics yielded a significantly lower hazard of long-term, all-cause mortality in patients treated in GCS-certified pancreatic centers (Hazard ratio = 0.89; 95%-CI = 0.85-0.93). This result remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses, including stratified estimations for subgroups of patients and hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This robust observational evidence suggests that patients with pancreatic cancer benefit from treatment in a certified cancer center in terms of survival. Therefore, the certification of hospitals appears to be a powerful strategy to improve patient outcomes in pancreatic cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04334239 ).

[Continence and pelvic floor centers-Meaningful certification requirements?]

As a consequence of the demographic change, the prevalence of female and male bladder and bowel dysfunction, functional pelvic floor disorders and pelvic organ prolapse are steadily increasing. Continence and pelvic floor centers are interdisciplinary facilities that focus on these functional disorders, including malformations, tumors and functional disorders resulting from neurogenic diseases, injuries or surgery. The affected patient clientele includes children, women, and men of all ages. The certification is carried out by the accredited certification company CERT iQ Certification Services. In addition to structural requirements, personal quality criteria are also implemented in the novel harmonized and standardized certification system. The assessment of treatment quality is also a component of the procedure, although it is currently limited to the midurethral sling tracer procedure for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Regarding the other conservative and surgical treatment options for pelvic floor, bladder and bowel functional disorders, no quality of outcome has so far been recorded. Internationally recognized and validated questionnaires to assess preoperative and postoperative quality of life would be valuable tools to define the quality of treatment and outcome. Similarly, supplementary thresholds should be established for complication rates and quality of the success of treatment to identify centers with high expertise. In this context, it is crucial to consider the individual complexity of the patient groups and to distinguish between primary and recurrent interventions.