Evaluating the scientific basis of quality indicators in colorectal cancer care: A systematic review

The Impact of the Pandemic on the Quality of Colorectal and Anal Cancer Care, and 2-Year Clinical Outcomes

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20-12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

Measurement that matters: A systematic review and modified Delphi of multidisciplinary colorectal cancer quality indicators

AIM

To develop a priority set of quality indicators (QIs) for use by colorectal cancer (CRC) multidisciplinary teams (MDTs).

METHODS

The review search strategy was executed in four databases from 2009-August 2019. Two reviewers screened abstracts/manuscripts. Candidate QIs and characteristics were extracted using a tailored abstraction tool and assessed for scientific soundness. To prioritize candidate indicators, a modified Delphi consensus process was conducted. Consensus was sought over two rounds; (1) multidisciplinary expert workshops to identify relevance to Australian CRC MDTs, and (2) an online survey to prioritize QIs by clinical importance.

RESULTS

A total of 93 unique QIs were extracted from 118 studies and categorized into domains of care within the CRC patient pathway. Approximately half the QIs involved more than one discipline (52.7%). One-third of QIs related to surgery of primary CRC (31.2%). QIs on supportive care (6%) and neoadjuvant therapy (6%) were limited. In the Delphi Round 1, workshop participants (n = 12) assessed 93 QIs and produced consensus on retaining 49 QIs including six new QIs. In Round 2, survey participants (n = 44) rated QIs and prioritized a final 26 QIs across all domains of care and disciplines with a concordance level > 80%. Participants represented all MDT disciplines, predominantly surgical (32%), radiation (23%) and medical (20%) oncology, and nursing (18%), across six Australian states, with an even spread of experience level.

CONCLUSION

This study identified a large number of existing CRC QIs and prioritized the most clinically relevant QIs for use by Australian MDTs to measure and monitor their performance.

Survival After Implementation of a Decision Support Tool to Facilitate Evidence-Based Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

Decision support tools (DSTs) to facilitate evidence-based cancer treatment are increasingly common in care delivery organizations. Implementation of these tools may improve process outcomes, but little is known about effects on patient outcomes such as survival. We aimed to evaluate the effect of implementing a DST for cancer treatment on overall survival (OS) among patients with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer.

METHODS

We used institutional cancer registry data to identify adults treated for first primary breast, colorectal, or lung cancer between December 2013 and December 2017. Our intervention of interest was implementation of a commercial DST for cancer treatment, and outcome of interest was OS. We emulated a single-arm trial with historical comparison and used a flexible parametric model to estimate standardized 3-year restricted mean survival time (RMST) difference and mortality risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence limits (CLs).

RESULTS

Our study population comprised 1,059 patients with cancer (323 breast, 318 colorectal, and 418 lung). Depending on cancer type, median age was 55-60 years, 45%-67% were racial/ethnic minorities, and 49%-69% were uninsured. DST implementation had little effect on survival at 3 years. The largest effect was observed among patients with lung cancer (RMST difference, 1.7 months; 95% CL, -0.26 to 3.7; mortality RR, 0.95; 95% CL, 0.88 to 1.0). Adherence with tool-based treatment recommendations was >70% before and >90% across cancers.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that implementation of a DST for cancer treatment has nominal effect on OS, which may be partially attributable to high adherence with evidence-based treatment recommendations before tool implementation in our setting. Our results raise awareness that improved process outcomes may not translate to improved patient outcomes in some care delivery settings.

Quality Indicators in Palliative Radiation Oncology: Development and Pilot Testing

Purpose

A quality indicator (QI) is a valuable tool to evaluate the quality of health care systems. In palliative radiation oncology, only a few related QIs have been developed to date. In this study, we sought to develop and pilot test QIs that assess the quality of care in palliative radiation therapy.

Methods and Materials

A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus with an expert panel. The panel consisted of 8 radiation oncologists who have expertise in palliative radiation oncology and 1 expert on Delphi methodology. Online panel meetings and e-mail surveys were conducted to develop QIs on palliative radiation therapy for bone and brain metastases. Feasibility of measurement was assessed though pilot surveys that were conducted by radiation oncologists at 5 facilities.

Results

After 3 online meetings and 2 e-mail surveys, we developed 4 QIs on bone metastases and 3 QIs on brain metastases. Two email surveys and 2 pilot surveys confirmed the validity of QIs and the feasibility of measurement, respectively.

Conclusions

We developed valid and feasible QIs on palliative radiation therapy for bone and brain metastases. Our work may contribute to reduce the evidence–practice gaps in palliative radiation oncology.

Quality Indicators and Outcomes in a Prospective Cohort of Colorectal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Some quality indicators of proper health care in patients with colorectal cancer have been established.

AIMS

Our goal was to evaluate the relationship between performing of certain procedures or treatments, included as quality indicators, and some outcomes of indicators in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer that underwent surgery and were followed at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. CT scanning, colonoscopy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy were evaluated in relation to various clinical outcomes and PROM changes over 5 years. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate their effect on mortality, complications, recurrence, and PROM changes (HAD, EQ-5D, EORTC-Q30) at the next follow-up.

RESULTS

CT scanning or colonoscopy was related to a decrease in the risk of dying, while chemotherapy at a specified moment was related to an increased risk. In the case of recurrence, CT scanning and chemotherapy showed statistically increased the risk, while all the procedures and treatments influenced complications. Regarding PROM scales, CT scanning, colonoscopy, and radiotherapy showed statistically significant results with respect to an increase in anxiety and decrease in quality of life measured by the EORTC. However, undergoing radiotherapy at a specified moment increased depression levels, and overall, receiving radiotherapy decreased the quality of life of the patients, as measured by the EuroQol-5d.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and severity of the disease, performing certain quality indicators of proper health care in patients with colorectal cancer was related to less mortality but higher adverse outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02488161.

Quality indicator selection for the Canadian Partnership against Cancer rectal cancer project: A modified Delphi study

AIM

It is well established that (i) magnetic resonance imaging, (ii) multidisciplinary cancer conference (MCCs), (iii) preoperative radiotherapy, (iv) total mesorectal excision surgery and (v) pathological assessment as described by Quirke are key processes necessary for high quality, rectal cancer care. The objective was to select a set of multidisciplinary quality indicators to measure the uptake of these clinical processes in clinical practice.

METHOD

A multidisciplinary panel was convened and a modified two-phase Delphi method was used to select a set of quality indicators. Phase 1 included a literature review with written feedback from the panel. Phase 2 included an in-person workshop with anonymous voting. The selection criteria for the indicators were strength of evidence, ease of capture and usability. Indicators for which ≥90% of the panel members voted 'to keep' were selected as the final set of indicators.

RESULTS

During phase 1, 68 potential indicators were generated from the literature and an additional four indicators were recommended by the panel. During phase 2, these 72 indicators were discussed; 48 indicators met the 90% inclusion threshold and included eight pathology, five radiology, 11 surgical, six radiation oncology and 18 MCC indicators.

CONCLUSION

A modified Delphi method was used to select 48 multidisciplinary quality indicators to specifically measure the uptake of key processes necessary for high quality care of patients with rectal cancer. These quality indicators will be used in future work to identify and address gaps in care in the uptake of these clinical processes.

Colon cancer survival differs from right side to left side and lymph node harvest number matter

Background

Right-sided colorectal cancer (CRC) has worse survival than does left-sided CRC. The objective of this study was to further assess the impact of right-side location on survival and the role of the extent of lymphadenectomy.

Methods

All CRCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2012 in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy, were included. Data for stage, grade, histology, screening history, and number of removed lymph nodes (LN) were collected. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR), with relative 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), of right vs. left colon and of removing < 12, 12–21 or > 21 lymph nodes by cancer site.

Results

During the study period, 29,358 patients were registered (8828 right colon, 18,852 left colon, 1678 transverse). Patients with right cancer were more often older, females, with advanced stage and high grade, and higher number of removed LNs. Five-year survival was lower in the right than in the left colon (55.2% vs 59.7%). In multivariable analysis, right colon showed a lower survival when adjusting for age, sex, and screening status (HR 1.12, 95%CI 1.04–1.21). Stratification by number of lymph nodes removed (12–21 or > 21) was associated with better survival in right colon (HR 0.54, 95%CI 0.40–0.72 and HR 0.40, 95%CI 0.30–0.55, respectively) compared to left colon (HR 0.89, 95%CI 0.76–1.06 and HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.69–1.01, respectively).

Conclusions

This study confirms that right CRC has worse survival; the association is not due to screening status. An adequate removal of lymph nodes is associated with better survival, although the direction of the association in terms of causal links is not clear.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10746-4.

Surgery for rectal cancer: Differences in resection rates among hospitals in the Netherlands

AIM

Numerous quality improvement initiatives for rectal cancer surgery have focused on textbook outcome parameters. In these studies, resection rate and patients who did not undergo surgery are not included, but these parameters might help to evaluate the surgical care for rectal cancer. The aim of this study is to assess the variation of non-metastatic rectal cancer resection rates among hospitals and its effect on patient outcomes.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal cancer between 2013 and 2018 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were categorized in quartiles according to resection rates. A multivariable logistic analysis was performed to determine variation in resection rate between these quartiles using a logistic regression analysis to correct for confounders. The association between resection rates and survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox-regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 22,530 patients were included in the analysis. Resection rates varied from 68 to 89% between hospitals. After multivariable analysis, resection rate remained significantly different among the quartiles when correcting for several factors (odds ratio (95%Confidence-interval) 1.71 (1.56-1.88), 2.42 (2.19-2.67), and 4.04 (3.61-4.53) for increasing resection rate quartiles, in reference to the lowest quartile). A higher resection rate was associated with better overall survival, in multivariable analysis this survival benefit could no longer be identified.

CONCLUSION

There is a substantial variation in resection rates for rectal cancer among hospitals in the Netherlands with an impact on overall survival. This may be a relevant issue when analyzing the overall quality of rectal cancer care.

Assessment of quality-of-care indicators for colorectal cancer surgery at a single centre in a developing country

BACKGROUND

The implementation of quality-of-care indicators aiming to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes has been previously described by Cancer Care Ontario. The aim of this study was to assess the quality-of-care indicators in CRC at a referral centre in a developing country and to determine whether improvement occurred over time.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of our prospectively collected database of patients after CRC surgery from 2001 to 2016. We excluded patients who underwent local transanal excision, pelvic exenteration or palliative procedures. We evaluated trends over time using the Cochran-Armitage test for trend.

RESULTS

A total of 343 patients underwent surgical resection of CRC over the study period. There was improvement of the following indicators over time: the proportion of patients detected by screening (p = 0.03), the proportion of patients with preoperative liver imaging (p = 0.001), the proportion of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.03), the proportion of patients with pathology reports that indicated the number of lymph nodes examined and the number of positive nodes (p = 0.001), and the proportion of patients with pathology reports describing the details on margin status (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed the feasibility of applying the Cancer Care Ontario indicators for evaluating outcomes in CRC treatment at a single centre in a developing country. Although there was an improvement of some of the quality-of-care indicators over time, policies and interventions must be implemented to improve the fulfillment of all indicators.

Prognostic Factors and Differences in Survival of Right and Left Colon Carcinoma: A STROBE Compliant Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Right-colon cancer (RCC) presents differences with Left-colon cancer (LCC) in terms of Overall survival (OS), but certain reports provide conflicting findings. Our objective is to define differences regarding prognostic factors in RCC and LCC by multivariate analysis.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort including patients treated from 1992-2016. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used to define prognostic factors.

RESULTS

871 patients had RCC and 748 LCC; mean age was 58.1. Location was associated with socioeconomic status, body mass, blood hemoglobin, serum albumin, lymphocyte count and Prognostic nutritional index (PNI). Distribution of TNM stages was similar between groups, as well as gender, age, surgical morbidity/mortality; 72.3% of RCC and 83.2% of LCC were well/moderately differentiated (p <0.0001). Mean surgical lymph-node retrieval was 19.3 (SD14.6) for RCC and 15.7 (SD13.1) for LCC (p <0.0001). Median OS was 5.2 (95% CI 3.9-6.5) for RCC, and 3.2 years (95% CI 2.1-4.4) for LCC (p = 0.426). OS was different between RCC and LCC by stratified analyses within PNI, TNM, differentiation and R classification. RCC presents different OS in stages IIIC, and IVB than LCC.

CONCLUSION

Differences between RCC and LCC were mainly by immunonutritional variables. Differences in OS were found after stratified analysis of PNI, TNM stages, differentiation degree, and R classification. Location of the neoplasm in the colon should be considered in the design of clinical trials in patients with colon cancer.

Setting the Benchmark for the Ground and Air Medical Quality in Transport International Quality Improvement Collaborative

OBJECTIVE

Critical care transport (CCT) supports regionalization of medical care. Focus on the quality of CCT care prompted the development of the Ground and Air Medical qUality in Transport (GAMUT) Quality Improvement collaborative database which tracks consensus quality metrics. The Institute of Medicine recommends benchmarking of comparative data to accelerate improvement. Herein, we report the strategies and rationale for GAMUT QI Collaborative benchmarking.

METHODS

The GAMUT database includes >350 programs internationally with >200,000 annual patient contacts. Evidence-based literature review performed in May 2016 and October 2017 identified benchmarking strategies were evaluated and summarized, specific to the GAMUT metrics. Statistical analyses include simple statistics and weighted expectation calculations for benchmark examples (Pearson chi-square with Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc z tests).

RESULTS

Evidence-based literature search yielded 70 articles, and 31 were selected for inclusion in our evidence table. 5 evidence-based benchmark strategies were considered: average (mean), average (median), adjusted benchmark (based on expected outcome), Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC), and Delphi. ABC threshold establishes a higher target (90th percentile) forcing more programs to achieve higher performance.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking is not well-suited for a single strategy and requires customized consideration based on each metric, though adjusted benchmark and ABC generally set higher performance benchmarks.