1
|
Algera MD, van Driel WJ, Slangen BFM, Wouters MWJM, Kruitwagen RFPM. Effect of surgical volume on short-term outcomes of cytoreductive surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: A population-based study from the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit. Gynecol Oncol 2024; 186:144-153. [PMID: 38688188 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2023] [Revised: 03/29/2024] [Accepted: 04/05/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Despite lacking clinical data, the Dutch government is considering increasing the minimum annual surgical volume per center from twenty to fifty cytoreductive surgeries (CRS) for advanced-stage ovarian cancer (OC). This study aims to evaluate whether this increase is warranted. METHODS This population-based study included all CRS for FIGO-stage IIB-IVB OC registered in eighteen Dutch hospitals between 2019 and 2022. Short-term outcomes included result of CRS, length of stay, severe complications, 30-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and textbook outcome. Patients were stratified by annual volume: low-volume (nine hospitals, <25), medium-volume (four hospitals, 29-37), and high-volume (five hospitals, 54-84). Descriptive statistics and multilevel logistic regressions were used to assess the (case-mix adjusted) associations of surgical volume and outcomes. RESULTS A total of 1646 interval CRS (iCRS) and 789 primary CRS (pCRS) were included. No associations were found between surgical volume and different outcomes in the iCRS cohort. In the pCRS cohort, high-volume was associated with increased complete CRS rates (aOR 1.9, 95%-CI 1.2-3.1, p = 0.010). Furthermore, high-volume was associated with increased severe complication rates (aOR 2.3, 1.1-4.6, 95%-CI 1.3-4.2, p = 0.022) and prolonged length of stay (aOR 2.3, 95%-CI 1.3-4.2, p = 0.005). 30-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and textbook outcome were not associated with surgical volume in the pCRS cohort. Subgroup analyses (FIGO-stage IIIC-IVB) showed similar results. Various case-mix factors significantly impacted outcomes, warranting case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS Our analyses do not support further centralization of iCRS for advanced-stage OC. High-volume was associated with higher complete pCRS, suggesting either a more accurate selection in these hospitals or a more aggressive approach. The higher completeness rates were at the expense of higher severe complications and prolonged admissions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M D Algera
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands; GROW- School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - W J van Driel
- Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Gynecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - B F M Slangen
- Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands; GROW- School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - M W J M Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Surgical Oncology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - R F P M Kruitwagen
- Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands; GROW- School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bourgeois J, Peacock HM, Savoye I, De Gendt C, Leroy R, Silversmit G, Stordeur S, de Sutter P, Goffin F, Luyckx M, Orye G, Van Dam P, Van Gorp T, Verleye L. Quality of surgery and treatment and its association with hospital volume: A population-based study in more than 5000 Belgian ovarian cancer patients. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2024; 50:107978. [PMID: 38306864 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.107978] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2023] [Revised: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/20/2024] [Indexed: 02/04/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Different sets of quality indicators are used to identify areas for improvement in ovarian cancer care. This study reports transparently on how (surgical) indicators were measured and on the association between hospital volume and indicator results in Belgium, a country setting without any centralisation of ovarian cancer care. METHODS From the population-based Belgian Cancer Registry, patients with a borderline malignant or invasive epithelial ovarian tumour diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 were selected and linked to health insurance and vital status data (n = 5119). Thirteen quality indicators on diagnosis and treatment were assessed and the association with hospital volume was analysed using logistic regression adjusted for case-mix. RESULTS The national results for most quality indicators on diagnosis and systemic therapy were around the predefined target value. Other indicators showed results below the benchmark: genetic testing, completeness of staging surgery, lymphadenectomy with at least 20 pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes removed, and timely start of chemotherapy after surgery (within 42 days). Ovarian cancer care in Belgium is dispersed over 100 hospitals. Lower volume hospitals showed poorer indicator results compared to higher volume hospitals for lymphadenectomy, staging, timely start of chemotherapy and genetic testing. In addition, surgery for advanced stage tumours was performed less often in lower volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS The indicators that showed poorer results on a national level were also those with poorer results in lower-volume hospitals compared to higher-volume hospitals, consequently supporting centralisation. International benchmarking is hampered by different (surgical) definitions between countries and studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jolyce Bourgeois
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, Brussels, B-1000, Belgium.
| | - Hanna M Peacock
- Belgian Cancer Registry, Koningsstraat 215, Bus7, Brussels, B-1210, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Savoye
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, Brussels, B-1000, Belgium
| | - Cindy De Gendt
- Belgian Cancer Registry, Koningsstraat 215, Bus7, Brussels, B-1210, Belgium
| | - Roos Leroy
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, Brussels, B-1000, Belgium
| | - Geert Silversmit
- Belgian Cancer Registry, Koningsstraat 215, Bus7, Brussels, B-1210, Belgium
| | - Sabine Stordeur
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, Brussels, B-1000, Belgium
| | - Philippe de Sutter
- Department Gynaecology-Oncology, UZ Brussel - VUB, Brussels, B-1210, Belgium
| | - Frédéric Goffin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - Mathieu Luyckx
- Service de Gynécologie et Andrologie and Institut Roi Albert II, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, UCLouvain, Brussel, Belgium
| | - Guy Orye
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium
| | - Peter Van Dam
- Division of Gynecological Oncology, Multidisciplinary Oncologic Centre, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, Edegem, B-2650, Belgium; Center for Oncological Research (CORE), Integrated Personalized and Precision Oncology Network (IPPON), University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, Wilrijk, B-2610, Belgium
| | - Toon Van Gorp
- University Hospital Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Leen Verleye
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, Brussels, B-1000, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Algera MD, Slangen BFM, van Driel WJ, Wouters MWJM, Kruitwagen RFPM. Textbook outcome as a composite outcome measure to compare hospital performances regarding cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: A nationwide population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 174:89-97. [PMID: 37167897 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2023] [Revised: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/20/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite outcome measure used in surgical oncology to compare hospital outcomes using multiple quality indicators. This study aimed to develop TO as an outcome measure to assess healthcare quality for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. METHODS This population-based study included all CRS for FIGO IIIC-IVB primary ovarian cancer registered in the Netherlands between 2017 and 2020. The primary outcome was TO, defined as a complete CRS, combined with the absence of 30-day mortality, severe complications, and prolonged length of admission (≥ten days). Delayed start of adjuvant chemotherapy (≥six weeks) was not included in TO because of missing data. Logistic regressions were used to assess the association of case-mix factors with TO. Hospital variation was displayed using funnel plots. RESULTS A total of 1909 CRS were included, of which 1434 were interval CRS and 475 were primary CRS. TO was achieved in 54% of the interval CRS cohort and 47% of the primary CRS cohort. Macroscopic residual disease after CRS was the most important factor for not achieving TO. Age ≥ 70 was associated with lower TO rates in multivariable logistic regressions. TO rates ranged from 40% to 69% between hospitals in the interval CRS cohort and 22% to 100% in the primary CRS cohort. In both analyses, one hospital had significantly lower TO rates (different hospitals). Case-mix adjustment significantly affected TO rates in the primary CRS analysis. CONCLUSIONS TO is a suitable composite outcome measure to detect hospital variation in healthcare quality for patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer undergoing CRS. Case-mix adjustment improves the accuracy of the hospital comparison.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M D Algera
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands; Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands; GROW- School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| | - B F M Slangen
- Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands; GROW- School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - W J van Driel
- Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Gynecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - M W J M Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands; Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Surgical Oncology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - R F P M Kruitwagen
- Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands; GROW- School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Salet N, Stangenberger VA, Bremmer RH, Eijkenaar F. Between-Hospital and Between-Physician Variation in Outcomes and Costs in High- and Low-Complex Surgery: A Nationwide Multilevel Analysis. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2023; 26:536-546. [PMID: 36436789 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Revised: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Clinicians and policy makers are increasingly exploring strategies to reduce unwarranted variation in outcomes and costs. Adequately accounting for case mix and better insight into the levels at which variation exists is crucial for such strategies. This nationwide study investigates variation in surgical outcomes and costs at the level of hospitals and individual physicians and evaluates whether these can be reliably compared on performance. METHODS Variation was analyzed using 92 330 patient records collected from 62 Dutch hospitals who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer (n = 6640), urinary bladder cancer (n = 14 030), myocardial infarction (n = 31 870), or knee osteoarthritis (n = 39 790) in the period 2018 to 2019. Multilevel regression modeling with and without case-mix adjustment was used to partition variation in between-hospital and between-physician components for in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit admission, length of stay, 30-day readmission, 30-day reintervention, and in-hospital costs. Reliability was calculated for each treatment-outcome combination at both levels. RESULTS Across outcomes, hospital-level variation relative to total variation ranged between ≤ 1% and 15%, and given the high caseloads, this typically yielded high reliability (> 0.9). In contrast, physician-level variation components were typically ≤ 1%, with limited opportunities to make reliable comparisons. The impact of case-mix adjustment was limited, but nonnegligible. CONCLUSIONS It is not typically possible to make reliable comparisons among physicians due to limited partitioned variation and low caseloads. Nevertheless, for hospitals, the opposite often holds. Although variation-reduction efforts directed at hospitals are thus more likely to be successful, this should be approached cautiously, partly because level-specific variation and the impact of case mix vary considerably across treatments and outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nèwel Salet
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
| | - Vincent A Stangenberger
- Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands; LOGEX b.v., Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
| | | | - Frank Eijkenaar
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Brennan DJ, Driel WJV, Zivanovic O. The necessity to adhere to evidence-based indications for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2023; 33:851-852. [PMID: 36898700 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2023-004411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/12/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Donal J Brennan
- UCD Gynaecological Oncology Group, UCD School of Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Willemien J van Driel
- Department of Gynaecology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Oliver Zivanovic
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Algera MD, Baldewpersad Tewarie NMS, Driel WJV, van Ham MAPC, Slangen BFM, Kruitwagen RFPM, Wouters MWJM. Case-mix adjustment to compare hospital performances regarding complications after cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: a nationwide population-based study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 33:534-542. [PMID: 36581486 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003981] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Complication rates after cytoreductive surgery are important quality indicators for hospitals that treat patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Case-mix factors are patient and tumor characteristics that may influence hospital outcomes such as the complication rates. Currently, no case-mix adjustment model exists for complications after cytoreductive surgery; therefore, it is unclear whether hospitals are being compared correctly. This study aims to develop the first case-mix adjustment model for complications after surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer, enabling an accurate comparison between hospitals. METHODS This population-based study included all patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer registered in the Netherlands in 2017-2019. Case-mix variables were identified and assessed using logistic regressions. The primary outcome was the composite outcome measure 'complicated course'. Patients had a complicated course when at least one of the following criteria were met: (1) any complication combined with a prolonged length of hospital stay; (2) complication requiring reintervention; (3) any complication with a prolonged length of stay in the intensive care unit; or (4) 30-day mortality or in-hospital mortality during admission following surgery. Inter-hospital variation was analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions and visualized using funnel plots. RESULTS A total of 1822 patients were included, of which 10.7% (n=195) had a complicated course. Comorbidity and tumor stage had a significant impact on complicated course rates in multivariable logistic regression. Inter-hospital variation was not significant for case-mix factors. Complicated course rates ranged between 2.2% and 29.1%, and case-mix adjusted observed/expected ratios ranged from 0.20 to 2.67 between hospitals. Three hospitals performed outside the confidence intervals for complicated course rates. These hospitals remained outliers after case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSION There is variation between hospitals regarding complicated course rates after cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer in the Netherlands. While comorbidity and tumor stage significantly affected the complicated course rates, adjusting for case-mix factors did not significantly affect hospital outcomes. The limited impact of case-mix adjustment could be a result of the Dutch centralized healthcare model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marc Daniël Algera
- Gynecologic Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands .,Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.,GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Nishita M S Baldewpersad Tewarie
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Brigitte F M Slangen
- Gynecologic Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Roy F P M Kruitwagen
- Gynecologic Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Michel W J M Wouters
- Scientific Bureau, Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Baldewpersad Tewarie NMS, van Ham M, Wouters M, Kruitwagen R, van Driel W. Guideline adherence in ovarian cancer for surgical staging in the Netherlands. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32:1592-1598. [PMID: 36270772 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2022-003666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Previous studies have shown low adherence to surgical staging guidelines in patients with clinical early-stage ovarian carcinoma. The aim of this study was to identify guideline adherence for surgical staging and to show the distribution of each surgical item within the study population. In addition, we examined whether regional variation in the Netherlands exists for complete surgical staging. METHODS Patients with ovarian cancer and surgical staging registered in the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 in the Netherlands were included. Complete surgical staging was defined according to the Dutch evidence-based guideline. Surgical items were ranked and illustrated. Variation in complete surgical staging for eight regional cancer networks was shown in funnel plots. Manual validation of registered data was performed in three gynecological oncology centers. RESULTS 604 patients underwent surgical staging, 365 (60%) underwent an incomplete staging procedure, 295 (81%) were registered with early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-IIA) and, of these patients, 115 (39%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with incomplete surgical staging were operated more often with minimal invasive techniques (laparoscopy or robot) compared with patients in the complete staging group (p<0.001). Sampling of cytology/ascites was the most frequently lacking factor (29%). Manual validation of data in three gynecological oncology centers identified reasons for incomplete staging, the most common being 'perioperative findings' such as dense adhesions between tumor and peritoneum, consistent with advanced stage disease (≥IIA). Regional variation for complete surgical staging showed two regions performing outside the confidence intervals (12.5% and 25.5%, mean 40%). CONCLUSION Guideline adherence for staging was lower than expected and validation of data gave additional insights into the reasons that were contributing to incomplete surgical staging. Moreover, this analysis showed that regional variation for surgical staging exists, which forms a starting point to improve and harmonize staging procedures for these patients nationwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nishita M S Baldewpersad Tewarie
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands .,Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Maaike van Ham
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Michel Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roy Kruitwagen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and GROW- School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Willemien van Driel
- Department of Gynecology, Amsterdam, Center of Gynecological Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Algera M, van Driel W, Slangen B, Kruitwagen R, Wouters M, Ten Cate A, Aalders A, van der Kolk A, Kruse A, Jong AVHD, van de Swaluw A, Visschers B, Buis C, Gerestein C, Smeets C, Boll D, van de Laar R, Ngo D, Davelaar E, Ooms E, van Dorst E, Schmeink C, van Es E, Roes E, Ten Cate F, Rijcken F, Dunné FRV, Fons G, Jansen G, Verhoeve H, Nagel H, Keizer H, Smedts H, Ebisch I, van de Lande J, Louwers J, Briet J, De Waard J, Diepstraten J, Vollebergh J, Van der Avoort I, Van Dijk J, Lange J, Mens J, Gaarenstroom K, Overmars K, De Vries L, Hofman L, Bartelink L, Huisman M, Verbruggen M, Vos M, Huisman M, Kleppe M, van den Hende M, van der Aa M, Wust M, Baas M, Engelen M, Scheers E, Moonen-Delarue M, Tjiong M, Leffers N, Reesink N, Timmers P, Kolk P, Vencken P, Yigit R, Smit R, Westenberg S, Coppus S, Stam T, Schukken T, van Baal W, Minderhoud-Bassie W, Van der Plas-Koning Y, van Ham M. Impact of the COVID-19-pandemic on patients with gynecological malignancies undergoing surgery: A Dutch population-based study using data from the 'Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit'. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 165:330-338. [PMID: 35221132 PMCID: PMC8860632 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.02.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2021] [Revised: 02/13/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The COVID-19-pandemic caused drastic healthcare changes worldwide. To date, the impact of these changes on gynecological cancer healthcare is relatively unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19-pandemic on surgical gynecological-oncology healthcare. METHODS This population-based cohort study included all surgical procedures with curative intent for gynecological malignancies, registered in the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit, in 2018-2020. Four periods were identified based on COVID-19 hospital admission rates: 'Pre-COVID-19', 'First wave', 'Interim period', and 'Second wave'. Surgical volume, perioperative care processes, and postoperative outcomes from 2020 were compared with 2018-2019. RESULTS A total of 11,488 surgical procedures were analyzed. For cervical cancer, surgical volume decreased by 17.2% in 2020 compared to 2018-2019 (mean 2018-2019: n = 542.5, 2020: n = 449). At nadir (interim period), only 51% of the expected cervical cancer procedures were performed. For ovarian, vulvar, and endometrial cancer, volumes remained stable. Patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer more frequently received neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 2020 compared to 2018-2019 (67.7% (n = 432) vs. 61.8% (n = 783), p = 0.011). Median time to first treatment was significantly shorter in all four malignancies in 2020. For vulvar and endometrial cancer, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in 2020. No significant differences in complicated course and 30-day-mortality were observed. CONCLUSIONS The COVID-19-pandemic impacted surgical gynecological-oncology healthcare: in 2020, surgical volume for cervical cancer dropped considerably, waiting time was significantly shorter for all malignancies, while neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration for advanced-stage ovarian cancer increased. The safety of perioperative healthcare was not negatively impacted by the pandemic, as complications and 30-day-mortality remained stable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M.D. Algera
- Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands,GROW- School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, the Netherlands,Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands,Corresponding author at: Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Rijnsburgerweg 10, 2333 AA Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - W.J. van Driel
- Center for Gynecological Oncology Amsterdam, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Gynecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - B.F.M. Slangen
- Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands,GROW- School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - R.F.P.M. Kruitwagen
- Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht, the Netherlands,GROW- School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - M.W.J.M. Wouters
- Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA), Scientific Bureau, Leiden, the Netherlands,Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Surgical Oncology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - the participants of the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Collaborator groupBaalbergenA.1Ten CateA.D.2AaldersA.L.3van der KolkA.4KruseA.J.5JongA.M.L.D. Van Haaften-de6van de SwaluwA.M.G.7VisschersB.A.J.T.8BuisC.C.N.9GeresteinC.G.1017SmeetsC.M.W.H.11BollD.12van de LaarR.13NgoD.H.14DavelaarE.15OomsE.A.16van DorstE.B.L.17SchmeinkC.E.18van EsE.J.M.19RoesE.M.20Ten CateF.A.21RijckenF.E.M.22DunnéF.M.R. Rosier-van23FonsG.24JansenG.H.25VerhoeveH.R.26NagelH.T.C.27KeizerH.H.28SmedtsH.P.M.29EbischI.M.W.30van de LandeJ.2LouwersJ.A.31BrietJ.32De WaardJ.33DiepstratenJ.4VolleberghJ.H.A.34Van der AvoortI.A.M.35Van DijkJ.E.W.36LangeJ.G.37MensJ.W.M.20GaarenstroomK.N.69OvermarsK.38De VriesL.C.39HofmanL.N.40BartelinkL.R.41HuismanM.A.42VerbruggenM.B.43VosM.C.44HuismanM.45KleppeM.46van den HendeM.47van der AaM.48WustM.D.49BaasM.I.50EngelenM.J.A.51ScheersE.C.A.H.52Moonen-DelarueM.W.G.53TjiongM.Y.54LeffersN.55ReesinkN.56TimmersP.J.57KolkP.58VenckenP.M.L.H.59YigitR.60SmitR.A.61WestenbergS.M.62CoppusS.F.P.J.63StamT.C.27SchukkenT.K.64van BaalW.M.65Minderhoud-BassieW.66Van der Plas-KoningY.W.C.M.67van HamM.A.P..C.68Reinier de Graaf Groep, Delft, the NetherlandsSpaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, the NetherlandsRijnstate Ziekenhuis, Arnhem, the NetherlandsStichting Olijf, the NetherlandsIsala Klinieken, Zwolle, the NetherlandsHagaZiekenhuis, The Hague, the NetherlandsDijklander Ziekenhuis, Hoorn, the NetherlandsStichting Zorgsaam Zeeuws Vlaanderen, Terneuzen, the NetherlandsNij Smellinghe, Drachten, the NetherlandsMeander Medisch Centrum, Amersfoort, the NetherlandsSlingeland Ziekenhuis, Doetinchem, the NetherlandsCatharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, the NetherlandsVieCuri Medisch Centrum, Venlo, the NetherlandsElkerliek Ziekenhuis, Helmond, the NetherlandsLangeland Ziekenhuis, Zoetermeer, the NetherlandsRode Kruis Ziekenhuis, Beverwijk, the NetherlandsUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the NetherlandsSint Anna Ziekenhuis, Geldrop, the NetherlandsSint Jansgasthuis, Weert, the NetherlandsErasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsBovenij Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsAlrijne Zorggroep, Leiderdorp, the NetherlandsTer Gooi Ziekenhuis, Hilversum, the NetherlandsAcademic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsTjongerschans Ziekenhuis, Heereveen, the NetherlandsOnze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsHaaglanden Medical Center, the Hague, the NetherlandsMedisch Centrum Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the NetherlandsAmphia Ziekenhuis, Breda, the NetherlandsCanisius Wilhelmina ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsDiakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the NetherlandsZiekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, the NetherlandsFranciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsBernhoven Ziekenhuis, Uden, the NetherlandsIkazia Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsStreekziekenhuis Koningin Beatrix, Winterswijk, the NetherlandsSint Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwengein, the NetherlandsAmstelland Ziekenhuis, Amstelveen, the NetherlandsTreant Zorggroep, Hoogeveen, the NetherlandsAlbert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis, Dordrecht, the NetherlandsGelderse Vallei, Ede, the NetherlandsDeventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, the NetherlandsZaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, the NetherlandsElisabeth- TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the NetherlandsGelre Ziekenhuis, Apeldoorn, the NetherlandsMartini Ziekenhuis, Groningen, the NetherlandsIJsselland Ziekenhuis, Capelle aan de IJssel, the NetherlandsNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (NCCN), the NetherlandsSaxenburgh Medisch Centrum, Hardenberg, the NetherlandsZiekenhuis Rivierenland, Tiel, the NetherlandsZuyderland Medisch Centrum, Heerlen, the NetherlandsWilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Assen, the NetherlandsLaurentius Ziekenhuis, Roermond, the NetherlandsVrije Universiteit Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsOmmelander Ziekenhuis, Scheemda, the NetherlandsMedisch Centrum Twente, Enschede, the NetherlandsMaasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsGroene Hart Ziekenhuis, Gouda, the NetherlandsBravis Ziekenhuis, Roosendaal, the NetherlandsUniversity Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the NetherlandsJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the NetherlandsNoordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, the NetherlandsMaxima Medisch Centrum, Veldhoven, the NetherlandsAntonius Ziekenhuis, Sneek, the NetherlandsFlevoziekenhuis, Almere, the NetherlandsSint Jansdal Ziekenhuis, Harderwijk, the NetherlandsAdmiraal de Ruyter Ziekenhuis, Vlissingen, the NetherlandsRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the NetherlandsLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lof P, Retèl V, Algera M, van Gent M, Gaarenstroom K, van Driel W. Clinical implementation of routine diagnostic laparoscopy to guide initial treatment in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer in Dutch clinical practice: Evaluation of support and a budget impact analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2022; 165:459-465. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.03.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Revised: 03/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
10
|
Laven P, Beltman JJ, Bense JE, van der Aa MA, Van Gorp T, Vos MC, Boll D, Arts H, Reesink N, Trimbos JB, Kruitwagen R. Incomplete surgical staging in clinical early-stage ovarian cancer: guidelines versus daily practice. Surg Open Sci 2021; 7:6-11. [PMID: 34778737 PMCID: PMC8577441 DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2021.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Revised: 09/08/2021] [Accepted: 09/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Incomplete surgical staging of patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has been reported in up to 98% of cases, when based on the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (FIGO) staging procedure. The aim of the present retrospective study was to clarify the reasons for incomplete staging. Methods The PRISMA (Prevention Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis) technique was used to evaluate cases with FIGO I-IIa EOC based on incomplete staging from five gynecologic oncologic center hospitals in the Netherlands in the period 2010-2014. Results Fifty cases with an incomplete surgical staging of EOC according to national guidelines were included. The most common reasons for incomplete staging were insufficient random biopsies of the peritoneum (n = 34, 68%), and less than ten lymph nodes being resected and/or found at pathology (n = 16, 32%). The most mentioned reason for not performing biopsies was, besides forgetting to do so, believing that after careful inspection and palpation, taking biopsies is irrelevant and/or already are being taken while performing a hysterectomy (peritoneum of cul-de-sac, bladder). The value of contralateral pelvic lymph node dissection in case of a unilateral ovarian malignancy was also doubted, influencing the number of lymph nodes resected. Conclusions The most important reasons for incomplete staging in EOC are, besides omitting elements by accident, questioning the importance of obligatory elements of the staging procedure. A structured list of staging steps during surgery and more evidence-based consensus concerning these obligatory elements might increase the number of complete staging procedures in EOC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Laven
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - J J Beltman
- Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J E Bense
- Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - M A van der Aa
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Department of Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - T Van Gorp
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecological Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M C Vos
- Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tilburg, The Netherlands
| | - D Boll
- Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Hgj Arts
- University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - N Reesink
- Hospital Medical Spectrum Twente, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - J B Trimbos
- Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Rfpm Kruitwagen
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|