1
|
Ruangsin S, Sunpaweravong S, Laohawiriyakamol S. Achievement of benchmark outcomes by a young surgical attendant performing pancreatoduodenectomies. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2023; 408:404. [PMID: 37843626 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03132-8] [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: 01/14/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 10/17/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Pancreatoduodenectomy is a challenging procedure for young general surgeons, and no benchmark outcomes are currently available for young surgeons who have independently performed pancreatoduodenectomies after completing resident training. This study aimed to identify the competency of a young surgeon in performing pancreatoduodenectomies, while ensuring patient safety, from the first case following certification by a General Surgical Board. METHODS A retrospective review of data from the university hospital was performed to assess quality outcomes of a young surgical attendant who performed 150 open pancreatoduodenectomies between July 13, 2006, and July 13, 2020. Primary benchmark outcomes were hospital morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postoperative hospital stay, and disease-free survival. RESULTS All benchmark outcomes were achieved by the young surgeon. The 90-day mortality rate was 2.7%, and one patient expired in the hospital (0.7% in-hospital mortality). The overall morbidity rate was 34.7%. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grades B and C were observed in 5.3% and 0% of patients, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 14 days. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival were 71.3% and 51.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION Pancreatoduodenectomy requires good standards of care as it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. As only one surgeon could be included in this study, our benchmark outcomes must be compared with those of other institutions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION The study was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry and approved by the United Nations (registration identification TCTR20220714002).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sakchai Ruangsin
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Kanjanawanich Road, Hat Yai, 90110, Songkhla, Thailand.
| | - Somkiat Sunpaweravong
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Kanjanawanich Road, Hat Yai, 90110, Songkhla, Thailand
| | - Supparerk Laohawiriyakamol
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Kanjanawanich Road, Hat Yai, 90110, Songkhla, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Woodhouse B, Barreto SG, Soreide K, Stavrou GA, Teh C, Pitt H, Di Martino M, Herman P, Lopez-Lopez V, Berrevoet F, Talamonti M, Mikhnevich M, Khatkov I, Webber L, Kaldarov A, Windsor J, Costa Filho OP, Koea J, Soreide K, Teh C, Stavrou GA, Pitt H, Di Martino M, Herman P, Lopez-Lopez V, Barreto SG, Berrevoet F, Teh C, Talamonti M, Mikhnevich M, Di Martino M, Soreide K, Khatkov I, Webber L, Kaldarov A, Pitt H, Windsor J, Costa Filho OP, Stavrou GA, Teh C, Pitt H, Di Martino M, Stavrou GA, Lopez-Lopez V, Stavrou GA, Barreto SG, Di Martino M, Lopez-Lopez V, Koea J. A core set of quality performance indicators for HPB procedures: a global consensus for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, and complex biliary surgery. HPB (Oxford) 2023:S1365-182X(23)00126-0. [PMID: 37198070 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.04.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2022] [Revised: 03/10/2023] [Accepted: 04/18/2023] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgery for hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) conditions is performed worldwide. This investigation aimed to develop a set of globally accepted procedural quality performance indicators (QPI) for HPB surgical procedures. METHODS A systematic literature review generated a dataset of published QPI for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, complex biliary surgery and cholecystectomy. Using a modified Delphi process, three rounds were conducted with working groups composed of self-nominating members of the International Hepatopancreaticobiliary Association (IHPBA). The final set of QPI was circulated to the full membership of the IHPBA for review. RESULTS Seven "core" indicators were agreed for hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, and complex biliary surgery (availability of specific services on site, a specialised surgical team with at least two certified HPB surgeons, a satisfactory institutional case volume, synoptic pathology reporting, undertaking of unplanned reintervention procedures within 90 days, the incidence of post-procedure bile leak and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications and 90-day post-procedural mortality). Three further procedure specific QPI were proposed for pancreatectomy, six for hepatectomy and complex biliary surgery. Nine procedure-specific QPIs were proposed for cholecystectomy. The final set of proposed indicators were reviewed and approved by 102 IHPBA members from 34 countries. CONCLUSIONS This work presents a core set of internationally agreed QPI for HPB surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Braden Woodhouse
- Department of Oncology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Savio G Barreto
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Kjetil Soreide
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway and Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Gregor A Stavrou
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Klinikum Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany
| | - Catherine Teh
- Department of Surgery, National Kidney and Transplant Institute, and Department of Surgery, Makati Medical Center and Department of Surgery, St Luke's Medical Center, Metro Manila, Philippines
| | - Henry Pitt
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey, USA
| | - Marcello Di Martino
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Department of Transplantation Surgery, A.O.R.N. Cardarelli, Napoli, Italy
| | - Paulo Herman
- Hospital das Clinicas, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Victor Lopez-Lopez
- Clinic and University Virgen de la Arrixaca Hospital, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain
| | - Frederik Berrevoet
- Department for General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Mark Talamonti
- University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, USA
| | | | - Igor Khatkov
- Moscow Clinical Scientific Centre, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - Ayrat Kaldarov
- Vishnevsky Centre of Surgery, Ministry of Health, Russia, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - John Windsor
- Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Omero P Costa Filho
- Universidade Luterana do Brasil and Hospital Militar de Área de Porto Alegre and Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Jonathan Koea
- Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
| | - Kjetil Soreide
- Universidade Luterana do Brasil and Hospital Militar de Área de Porto Alegre and Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil; Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway; College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Catherine Teh
- Department of Surgery, National Kidney and Transplant Institute, Metro Manila, Philippines; Department of Surgery, Makati Medical Center, Metro Manila, Philippines; Department of Surgery, St Luke's Medical Center, Metro Manila, Philippines
| | - Gregor A Stavrou
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Klinikum Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany
| | - Henry Pitt
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey, United States of America
| | - Marcello Di Martino
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Department of Transplantation Surgery, A.O.R.N. Cardarelli, Napoli, Italy
| | - Paulo Herman
- Hospital Das Clinicas, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Victor Lopez-Lopez
- Clinic and University Virgen de La Arrixaca Hospital, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain
| | - Savio G Barreto
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Frederik Berrevoet
- Department for General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Catherine Teh
- Department of Surgery, National Kidney and Transplant Institute, Philippines; Department of Surgery, Makati Medical Center, Philippines; Department of Surgery, St Luke's Medical Center, Metro Manila, Philippines
| | - Mark Talamonti
- University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, United States of America
| | | | - Marcello Di Martino
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Department of Transplantation Surgery, A.O.R.N. Cardarelli, Napoli, Italy
| | - Kjetil Soreide
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Igor Khatkov
- Moscow Clinical Scientific Centre, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - Ayrat Kaldarov
- Vishnevsky Centre of Surgery, Ministry of Health, Russia, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | - Henry Pitt
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey, United States of America
| | - John Windsor
- The Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Omero P Costa Filho
- Universidade Luterana Do Brazil, Brazil; Hospital Militar de Área de Porto Alegre, Brazil; Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Gregor A Stavrou
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Klinikum Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany
| | - Catherine Teh
- Department of Surgery, National Kidney and Transplant Institute, Philippines; Department of Surgery, Makati Medical Center, Philippines; Department of Surgery, St Luke's Medical Center, Metro Manila, Philippines
| | - Henry Pitt
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey, United States of America
| | - Marcello Di Martino
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Department of Transplantation Surgery, A.O.R.N. Cardarelli, Napoli, Italy
| | - Gregor A Stavrou
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Klinikum Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany
| | - Victor Lopez-Lopez
- Clinic and University Virgen de La Arrixaca Hospital, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain
| | - Gregor A Stavrou
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Klinikum Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, Germany
| | - Savio G Barreto
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Marcello Di Martino
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Department of Transplantation Surgery, A.O.R.N. Cardarelli, Napoli, Italy
| | - Victor Lopez-Lopez
- Clinic and University Virgen de La Arrixaca Hospital, IMIB-Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain
| | - Jonathan Koea
- The Department of Surgery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
The Rate of Avoidable Pancreatic Resections at a High-Volume Center: An Internal Quality Control and Critical Review. J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12041625. [PMID: 36836160 PMCID: PMC9967180 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041625] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2023] [Revised: 02/11/2023] [Accepted: 02/15/2023] [Indexed: 02/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The incidence of benign diseases among pancreatic resections for suspected malignancy still represents a relevant issue in the surgical practice. This study aims to identify the preoperative pitfalls that led to unnecessary surgeries at a single Austrian center over a twenty-year period. METHODS Patients undergoing surgery for suspected pancreatic/periampullary malignancy between 2000 and 2019 at the Linz Elisabethinen Hospital were included. The rate of "mismatches" between clinical suspicion and histology was considered as primary outcome. All cases that, despite that, fulfilled the indication criteria for surgery were defined as minor mismatches (MIN-M). Conversely, the true avoidable surgeries were identified as major mismatches (MAJ-M). RESULTS Among the 320 included patients, 13 (4%) presented with benign lesions at definitive pathology. The rate of MAJ-M was 2.8% (n = 9), and the most frequent causes of misdiagnoses were autoimmune pancreatitis (n = 4) and intrapancreatic accessory spleen (n = 2). In all MAJ-M cases, various mistakes within the preoperative workup were detected: lack of multidisciplinary discussion (n = 7, 77.8%); inappropriate imaging (n = 4, 44.4%); lack of specific blood markers (n = 7, 77.8%). The morbidity and mortality rates for mismatches were 46.7% and 0. CONCLUSION All avoidable surgeries were the result of an incomplete pre-operative workup. The adequate identification of the underlying pitfalls could lead to minimize and, potentially, overcome this phenomenon with a concrete optimization of the surgical-care process.
Collapse
|
4
|
Ioannou LJ, Zalcberg JR, Croagh D. National clinical quality registry for pancreatic cancer - the time is nigh. ANZ J Surg 2022; 92:1963. [PMID: 35950672 DOI: 10.1111/ans.17747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Liane J Ioannou
- Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia
| | - John R Zalcberg
- Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia.,Department of Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Daniel Croagh
- Department of Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Maharaj AD, Evans SM, Ioannou LJ, Croagh D, Earnest A, Holland JF, Pilgrim CHC, Neale RE, Goldstein D, Kench JG, Merrett ND, White K, Burmeister EA, Evans PM, Hayes TM, Houli N, Knowles B, Leong T, Nikfarjam M, Philip J, Quinn M, Shapiro J, Smith MD, Spillane JB, Wong R, Zalcberg JR. The association between quality care and outcomes for a real-world population of Australian patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. HPB (Oxford) 2022; 24:950-962. [PMID: 34852933 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2021] [Revised: 10/14/2021] [Accepted: 11/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study: (i) assessed compliance with a consensus set of quality indicators (QIs) in pancreatic cancer (PC); and (ii) evaluated the association between compliance with these QIs and survival. METHODS Four years of data were collected for patients diagnosed with PC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multivariable analysis tested the relationship between significant patient and hospital characteristics, patient cluster effects within hospitals and survival. RESULTS 1061 patients were eligible for this study. Significant association with improved survival were: (i) in the potentially resectable group having adjuvant chemotherapy administered following surgery or a reason documented (HR, 0.29; 95 CI, 0.19-0.46); (ii) in the locally advanced group included having chemotherapy ± chemoradiation, or a reason documented for not undergoing treatment (HR, 0.38; 95 CI, 0.25-0.58); and (iii) in the metastatic disease group included having documented performance status at presentation (HR, 0.65; 95 CI, 0.47-0.89), being seen by an oncologist in the absence of treatment (HR, 0.48; 95 CI, 0.31-0.77), and disease management discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting (HR, 0.79; 95 CI, 0.64-0.96). CONCLUSION Capture of a concise data set has enabled quality of care to be assessed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashika D Maharaj
- School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sue M Evans
- School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Liane J Ioannou
- School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Arul Earnest
- School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jennifer F Holland
- School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Rachel E Neale
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Queensland, Australia
| | - David Goldstein
- Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, New South Wales, Australia
| | - James G Kench
- Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Neil D Merrett
- School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kate White
- Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Trevor Leong
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | | - Maddy Quinn
- School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Rachel Wong
- Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - John R Zalcberg
- School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; Alfred Health, Victoria, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Seufferlein T, Mayerle J, Blödt S, Derenz S, Follmann M, Kestler A, Köster MJ, Langer T, Rütters D, Wesselmann S, Lorenz P. Leitlinienreport der S3-Leitlinie zum exokrinen Pankreaskarzinom. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE 2022; 60:288-391. [PMID: 35700969 DOI: 10.1055/a-1771-6893] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Susanne Blödt
- AWMF-Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement, Berlin, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Dana Rütters
- Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft (DKG), Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Pia Lorenz
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gastroneterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS), Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kulasegaran S, Woodhouse B, MacCormick AD, Srinivasa S, Koea J. Quality performance indicators for the surgical treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. ANZ J Surg 2022; 92:1995-2002. [PMID: 35238137 PMCID: PMC9546246 DOI: 10.1111/ans.17583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2021] [Revised: 02/07/2022] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Background A systematic review was undertaken to identify existing quality performance indicators (QPI) for the surgical treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) with the aim of defining a set of QPIs that can be used to assist in the accreditation of institutions for training, allow cross jurisdiction comparison of treatment and outcomes, as well as provide a basis to develop quality improvement programs. These QPI's capture key components of patient care that are fundamental to overall outcome. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS with all literature available until the date of 1 August 2021 included. Search terms utilized were ‘Quality of health care OR Quality improvement or Quality control OR Quality indicators’, AND ‘Gastrectomy’ OR ‘Stomach neoplasm’ OR ‘Adenocarcinoma’ OR ‘Gastric resection’ OR ‘Gastric cancer’. Results Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. The selected studies included editorials (n = 2), retrospective review of institutional experience (n = 5), cohort studies (n = 2), survey methodology (n = 1), expert guidelines (n = 1) and consensus statement (n = 1). For GC QPIs, process measures included patient discussion at multi‐disciplinary meetings, access to perioperative multimodal diagnostic pathways, and specific surgical metrics (margin negative resections and adequate lymphadenectomy). Outcome measures included the RO resection rate, reoperation, readmission rate, and length of hospital stay. Conclusions There is a relative paucity of internationally agreed QPI for the surgical management of gastric adenocarcinoma. The data from this review will form the basis of a project to develop internationally agreed and feasible QPI for gastric cancer resections.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Braden Woodhouse
- Discipline of Oncology, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Sanket Srinivasa
- The Department of Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Jonathan Koea
- The Department of Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Matsuyama M, Sachchithananthan M, Leonard R, Besser M, Nowak AK, Truran D, Vajdic CM, Zalcberg JR, Gan HK, Gedye C, Varikatt W, Koh ES, Kichenadasse G, Sim HW, Gottardo NG, Spyridopoulos D, Jeffree RL. What matters for people with brain cancer? Selecting clinical quality indicators for an Australian Brain Cancer Registry. Neurooncol Pract 2022; 9:68-78. [PMID: 35096405 PMCID: PMC8789278 DOI: 10.1093/nop/npab055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/06/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The goal of a clinical quality registry is to deliver immediate gains in survival and quality of life by delivering timely feedback to practitioners, thereby ensuring every patient receives the best existing treatment. We are developing an Australian Brain Cancer Registry (ABCR) to identify, describe, and measure the impact of the variation and gaps in brain cancer care from the time of diagnosis to the end of life. METHODS To determine a set of clinical quality indicators (CQIs) for the ABCR, a database and internet search were used to identify relevant guidelines, which were then assessed for quality using the AGREE II Global Rating Scale. Potential indicators were extracted from 21 clinical guidelines, ranked using a modified Delphi process completed in 2 rounds by a panel of experts and other stakeholders, and refined by a multidisciplinary Working Group. RESULTS Nineteen key quality reporting domains were chosen, specified by 57 CQIs detailing the specific inclusion and outcome characteristics to be reported. CONCLUSION The selected CQIs will form the basis for the ABCR, provide a framework for achievable data collection, and specify best practices for patients and health care providers, with a view to improving care for brain cancer patients. To our knowledge, the systematic and comprehensive approach we have taken is a world first in selecting the reporting specifications for a brain cancer clinical registry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Misa Matsuyama
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | - Mythily Sachchithananthan
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Robyn Leonard
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael Besser
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Anna K Nowak
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Donna Truran
- Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | - Claire M Vajdic
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John R Zalcberg
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Hui K Gan
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Cancer Therapies and Biology Group, Centre of Research Excellence in Brain Tumours, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- La Trobe University School of Cancer Medicine, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Craig Gedye
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Medical Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, New South Wales, Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Winny Varikatt
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Sydney Medical School West Precinct, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
- Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, ICPMR, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Eng-Siew Koh
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
- South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ganessan Kichenadasse
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
| | - Hao-Wen Sim
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- St Vincent’s Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Chris O’Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Nicholas G Gottardo
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Telethon Kids Institute, Perth Children’s Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
- Centre for Child Health Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Department of Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Desma Spyridopoulos
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rosalind L Jeffree
- Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia
- Kenneth G. Jamieson Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lee KC, Sokas CM, Streid J, Senglaub SS, Coogan K, Walling AM, Cooper Z. Quality Indicators in Surgical Palliative Care: A Systematic Review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2021; 62:545-558. [PMID: 33524478 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.01.122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2020] [Revised: 01/09/2021] [Accepted: 01/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Defining high quality palliative care in seriously ill surgical patients is essential to provide patient-centered surgical care. Quality indicators specifically for seriously ill surgical patients are necessary in order to integrate palliative care into existing surgical quality improvement programs. OBJECTIVES To identify existing quality indicators that measure palliative care delivery in seriously ill surgical patients, characterize their development, and assess their methodological quality. METHODS A PRISMA-guided systematic review included studies that reported on the development process and characteristics of palliative care quality indicators and guidelines in adult surgical patients. Relevant measures were categorized into the previously defined National Consensus Project domains of palliative care and the Donabedian quality framework, and assessed for methodological quality. RESULTS There were 263 unique measures identified from 26 studies, of which 70% were process measures. Indicators addressing Care of the Patient Near the End of Life (31.5%) and Physical Aspects of Care (20.8%) were the most common. Indicators addressing Spiritual (2.6%) and Cultural Aspects of Care (1.2%) were the least common. Methodological quality varied widely across studies. Although most studies defined a purpose for the indicators and used scientific evidence, many studies lacked input from target populations and few had discussed the practical application of indicators. CONCLUSION This review was a key step that informed efforts to develop quality indicators for seriously ill surgical patients. Few indicators addressed non-physical aspects of suffering and no indicators were identified addressing palliative surgery. Future attention is needed toward the development and practical application of palliative care quality indicators in surgical patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine C Lee
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Claire M Sokas
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Jocelyn Streid
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Steven S Senglaub
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Kathleen Coogan
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Anne M Walling
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Zara Cooper
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Partelli S, Sclafani F, Barbu ST, Beishon M, Bonomo P, Braz G, de Braud F, Brunner T, Cavestro GM, Crul M, Trill MD, Ferollà P, Herrmann K, Karamitopoulou E, Neuzillet C, Orsi F, Seppänen H, Torchio M, Valenti D, Zamboni G, Zins M, Costa A, Poortmans P. European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Pancreatic Cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2021; 99:102208. [PMID: 34238640 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2020] [Revised: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 04/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Partelli
- European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO); IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Sclafani
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC); Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Sorin Traian Barbu
- Pancreatic Cancer Europe (PCE); Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Marc Beishon
- Cancer World, European School of Oncology (ESO), Milan, Italy
| | - Pierluigi Bonomo
- Flims Alumni Club (FAC); Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Graça Braz
- European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS); Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal
| | - Filippo de Braud
- Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI); IRCCS Foundation National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Thomas Brunner
- European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO); Otto von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - Giulia Martina Cavestro
- European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG); IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Mirjam Crul
- European Society of Oncology Pharmacy (ESOP); Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Netherlands
| | - Maria Die Trill
- International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS); ATRIUM: Psycho-Oncology & Clinical Psychology, Madrid, Spain
| | - Piero Ferollà
- International Neuroendocrine Cancer Alliance (INCA); Umbria Regional Cancer Network, Perugia, Italy
| | - Ken Herrmann
- European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM); University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Eva Karamitopoulou
- European Society of Pathology (ESP); Institute of Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Cindy Neuzillet
- International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG), Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France
| | - Franco Orsi
- Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE); European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
| | - Hanna Seppänen
- Association of European Cancer Leagues (ECL); Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Martina Torchio
- Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI); IRCCS Foundation National Cancer Institute of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Danila Valenti
- European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC); Palliative Care Network, AUSL Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Giulia Zamboni
- European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI); University Hospital Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Marc Zins
- European Society of Radiology (ESR); Groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, Paris, France
| | | | - Philip Poortmans
- European Cancer Organisation (ECCO); Iridium Kankernetwerk and University of Antwerp, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ou C, Rektorysova M, Othman B, Windsor JA, Pandanaboyana S, Loveday BPT. Benchmarking Performance in Pancreatic Surgery: a Systematic Review of Published Quality Metrics. J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25:834-842. [PMID: 33159243 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04827-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2020] [Accepted: 10/08/2020] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatic surgery is performed in relatively few centres. There are validated quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery, although it remains unclear how published benchmarks compare with each other. This study aimed to systematically review published literature to summarise metrics that define quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery. METHOD A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was undertaken until June 2019. Articles that developed or validated published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery were included. Benchmarks were classified into three domains using the Donabedian framework, and their quality assessed using the AIRE Instrument. RESULTS Nineteen studies included 55 quality metrics, of which 8 developed new metrics, and 11 studies validated previously published metrics. The methodology of metric development was either expert opinion-driven or data-driven. All metrics demonstrated moderate quality scores. There was partial agreement in some metrics (e.g. < 10 h total operative duration), but lack of consensus for most others (e.g. lymph node yield ≥ 10, ≥ 12, ≥ 15, ≥ 16). No metrics related to patient reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery predominantly arise from eight studies, with heterogeneity in how the metrics were developed. There was not consensus for all metrics. Metrics need to be reviewed as new data emerge, technologies develop and opinions change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cindy Ou
- Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Bushra Othman
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - John A Windsor
- Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Department of Surgery, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Benjamin P T Loveday
- Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
- Department of Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Quality performance indicators for hepato-pancreatico-biliary procedures: a systematic review. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23:1-10. [PMID: 33158749 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.10.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2020] [Revised: 09/03/2020] [Accepted: 10/18/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This systematic review was undertaken to define and summarize existing, proposed quality performance indicators (QPI) for hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) procedures. METHODS A systematic literature review identified studies reporting on quality indicators for cholecystectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy and complex biliary surgical procedures. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and SCOPUS, with all literature available until the search date of 1 May 2020 included. The reference lists of all included papers, as well as related review articles, were manually searched to identify further relevant studies. RESULTS Forty-five publications report quality indicators for pancreatectomy (n = 22), hepatectomy (n = 7), HPB resections in general (n = 12), and cholecystectomy (n = 6). No publications proposed QPI for complex biliary surgery. The 45 papers used national audit (n = 18), consensus methodology (n = 5), state-wide audit (n = 3), unit audit (n = 9), review methodology (n = 9), and survey methodology (n = 1). Sixty-one QPI were reported for pancreatectomy, 22 reported for hepatectomy, and 14 reported for HPB resections in general, in domains of infrastructure, provider, and documentation. Fourteen infrastructure and provider-based QPI were reported for cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS There are few internationally agreed QPI for HPB procedures that allow global comparison of provider performance and that set aspirational goals for patient care and experience.
Collapse
|
13
|
Barriers and enablers to the implementation of protocol-based imaging in pancreatic cancer: A qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0243312. [PMID: 33332372 PMCID: PMC7746147 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 11/18/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate pre-operative imaging plays a vital role in patient selection for surgery and in allocating stage-appropriate therapies to patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (PC). This study aims to: (1) understand the current diagnosis and staging practices for PC; and (2) explore the factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the use of a pancreatic protocol computed tomography (PPCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm diagnosis and/or accurately stage PC. METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists from the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses. FINDINGS In total, 21 clinicians (5 radiologists, 10 surgeons, 2 gastroenterologists, 4 medical and radiation oncologists) were interviewed over a four-month-period. Belief statements relevant to the TDF domains were generated. Across the 11 relevant domains, 20 themes and 30 specific beliefs were identified. All TDF domains, with the exception of social influences were identified by participants as relevant to protocol-based imaging using either a PPCT or MRI, with the domains of knowledge, skills and environmental context and resources being offered by most participants as being relevant in influencing their decisions. CONCLUSIONS To maximise outcomes and personalise therapy it is imperative that diagnosis and staging investigations using the most appropriate imaging modalities are conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner. The results provide an understanding of specialists' opinion and behaviour in relation to a PPCT or MRI and should be used to inform the design of future interventions to improve compliance with this practice.
Collapse
|
14
|
Maharaj AD, Evans SM, Zalcberg JR, Ioannou LJ, Graco M, Croagh D, Pilgrim CHC, Dodson T, Goldstein D, Philip J, Kench JG, Merrett ND, Neale RE, White K, Evans P, Leong T, Green SE. Barriers and enablers to the implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework. BMJ Qual Saf 2020; 30:792-803. [PMID: 33247002 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011793] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2020] [Revised: 10/18/2020] [Accepted: 10/29/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BackgroundEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend discussion by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) to review and plan the management of patients for a variety of cancers. However, not all patients diagnosed with cancer are presented at an MDT.Objectives(1) To identify the factors (barriers and enablers) influencing presentation of all patients to, and the perceived value of, MDT meetings in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and; (2) to identify potential interventions that could overcome modifiable barriers and enhance enablers using the theoretical domains framework (TDF).MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists, palliative care specialists and nurse specialists based in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via videoconferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, deidentified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the TDF. Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses.ResultsIn total, 29 specialists were interviewed over a 4-month period. Twenty-two themes and 40 belief statements relevant to all the TDF domains were generated. Key enablers influencing MDT practices included a strong organisational focus (social/professional role and identity), beliefs about the benefits of an MDT discussion (beliefs about consequences), the use of technology, for example, videoconferencing (environmental context and resources), the motivation to provide good quality care (motivation and goals) and collegiality (social influences). Barriers included: absence of palliative care representation (skills), the number of MDT meetings (environmental context and resources), the cumulative cost of staff time (beliefs about consequences), the lack of capacity to discuss all patients within the allotted time (beliefs about capabilities) and reduced confidence to participate in discussions (social influences).ConclusionsThe internal and external organisational structures surrounding MDT meetings ideally need to be strengthened with the development of agreed evidence-based protocols and referral pathways, a focus on resource allocation and capabilities, and a culture that fosters widespread collaboration for all stages of pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
|
15
|
Srinivasa S, Parks R. Emerging concepts in the management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. LAPAROSCOPIC, ENDOSCOPIC AND ROBOTIC SURGERY 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lers.2019.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
|
16
|
Maharaj AD, Holland JF, Scarborough RO, Evans SM, Ioannou LJ, Brown W, Croagh DG, Pilgrim CHC, Kench JG, Lipton LR, Leong T, McNeil JJ, Nikfarjam M, Aly A, Burton PR, Cashin PA, Chu J, Duong CP, Evans P, Goldstein D, Haydon A, Hii MW, Knowles BPF, Merrett ND, Michael M, Neale RE, Philip J, Porter IWT, Smith M, Spillane J, Tagkalidis PP, Zalcberg JR. The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR): a clinical quality registry to monitor and improve care in upper gastrointestinal cancers. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e031434. [PMID: 31575580 PMCID: PMC6773358 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031434] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR) was developed to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers in Australia. PARTICIPANTS It supports four cancer modules: pancreatic, oesophagogastric, biliary and primary liver cancer. The pancreatic cancer (PC) module was the first module to be implemented, with others being established in a staged approach. Individuals are recruited to the registry if they are aged 18 years or older, have received care for their cancer at a participating public/private hospital or private clinic in Australia and do not opt out of participation. FINDINGS TO DATE The UGICR is governed by a multidisciplinary steering committee that provides clinical governance and oversees clinical working parties. The role of the working parties is to develop quality indicators based on best practice for each registry module, develop the minimum datasets and provide guidance in analysing and reporting of results. Data are captured from existing data sources (population-based cancer incidence registries, pathology databases and hospital-coded data) and manually from clinical records. Data collectors directly enter information into a secure web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data collection platform. The PC module began with a pilot phase, and subsequently, we used a formal modified Delphi consensus process to establish a core set of quality indicators for PC. The second module developed was the oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) module. Results of the 1 year pilot phases for PC and OGC modules are included in this cohort profile. FUTURE PLANS The UGICR will provide regular reports of risk-adjusted, benchmarked performance on a range of quality indicators that will highlight variations in care and clinical outcomes at a health service level. The registry has also been developed with the view to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which will further add to our understanding of the care of patients with these cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ashika D Maharaj
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jennifer F Holland
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ri O Scarborough
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sue M Evans
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Liane J Ioannou
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Wendy Brown
- Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | | - James G Kench
- Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Trevor Leong
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - John J McNeil
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mehrdad Nikfarjam
- Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ahmad Aly
- Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Paul R Burton
- Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Julie Chu
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Cuong P Duong
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Peter Evans
- Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - David Goldstein
- Nelune Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Michael W Hii
- St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Neil D Merrett
- School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Penrith South, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael Michael
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rachel E Neale
- Population Health Division, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | | | | | - Marty Smith
- Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - John Spillane
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - John R Zalcberg
- Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Woodhouse B, Pattison S, Segelov E, Singh S, Parker K, Kong G, Macdonald W, Wyld D, Meyer-Rochow G, Pavlakis N, Conroy S, Gordon V, Koea J, Kramer N, Michael M, Wakelin K, Asif T, Lo D, Price T, Lawrence B. Consensus-Derived Quality Performance Indicators for Neuroendocrine Tumour Care. J Clin Med 2019; 8:jcm8091455. [PMID: 31547431 PMCID: PMC6780732 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8091455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2019] [Revised: 09/05/2019] [Accepted: 09/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Quality performance indicators (QPIs) are used to monitor the delivery of cancer care. Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a family of individually uncommon cancers that derive from neuroendocrine cells or their precursors, and can occur in most organs. There are currently no QPIs available for NETs and their heterogeneity makes QPI development difficult. CommNETs is a collaboration between NET clinicians, researchers and advocates in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We created QPIs for NETs using a three-step consensus process. First, a multidisciplinary team used the nominal group technique to create candidates (n = 133) which were then curated into appropriateness statements (62 statements, 44 sub-statements). A two-stage modified RAND/UCLA Delphi consensus process was conducted: an online survey rated the statement appropriateness then the top-ranked statements (n = 20) were assessed in a face-to-face meeting. Finally, 10 QPIs met consensus criteria; documentation of primary site, proliferative index, differentiation, tumour board review, use of a structured pathology report, presence of distant metastasis, 5- and 10-year disease-free and overall survival. These NET QPIs will be trialed as a method to monitor and improve care for people with NETs and to facilitate international comparison.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Braden Woodhouse
- Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.
| | - Sharon Pattison
- Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.
| | - Eva Segelov
- Department of Medical Oncology, Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne 3800, Australia.
| | - Simron Singh
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.
| | - Kate Parker
- Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.
| | - Grace Kong
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne 3000, Australia.
| | - William Macdonald
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth 6150, Australia.
| | - David Wyld
- Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane 4029, Australia.
- School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia.
| | - Goswin Meyer-Rochow
- Department of General Surgery, Waikato Hospital, Hamilton 3204, New Zealand.
| | - Nick Pavlakis
- Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney 2065, Australia.
| | | | - Vallerie Gordon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Care Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0V9, Canada.
| | - Jonathan Koea
- Department of General Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Auckland 0620, New Zealand.
| | - Nicole Kramer
- Department of Pathology, North Shore Hospital, Auckland 0620, New Zealand.
| | - Michael Michael
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne 3000, Australia.
| | | | - Tehmina Asif
- Department of Medical Oncology, Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, Saskatoon, SK S4W 0G3, Canada.
| | - Dorothy Lo
- Department of Medical Oncology, St Joseph's Health Care, Toronto, ON M6R 1B5, Canada.
| | - Timothy Price
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide 5011, Australia.
| | - Ben Lawrence
- Discipline of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Sapalidis K, Kosmidis C, Funtanidou V, Katsaounis A, Barmpas A, Koimtzis G, Mantalobas S, Alexandrou V, Aidoni Z, Koulouris C, Pavlidis E, Giannakidis D, Surlin V, Pantea S, Strambu V, Constantina RO, Amaniti A, Zarogoulidis P, Mogoantă S, Kesisoglou I, Sardeli C. Update on current pancreatic treatments: from molecular pathways to treatment. J Cancer 2019; 10:5162-5172. [PMID: 31602269 PMCID: PMC6775621 DOI: 10.7150/jca.36300] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2019] [Accepted: 07/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is still diagnosed at a late stage although we have novel diagnostic tools. Pancreatic cancer chemotherapy treatment resistance is observed and therefore novel treatments are in need. Anti-cancer stem cell therapy, combination of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with immunotherapy, proteins/enzymes and gene therapy are currently under evaluation. Targeted treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors is also administered and novel inhibitors are also under evaluation. In the current review we present recent data from our search within the year 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantinos Sapalidis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Christoforos Kosmidis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Varvara Funtanidou
- Anesthesiology Department, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Athanasios Katsaounis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Amastasios Barmpas
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Georgios Koimtzis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Stylianos Mantalobas
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Vyron Alexandrou
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Zoi Aidoni
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Charilaos Koulouris
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Efstathios Pavlidis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Dimitrios Giannakidis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Valeriu Surlin
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | | | - Victor Strambu
- General Surgery Department, "Dr Carol Davila", University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucuresti, Romania
| | | | - Aikaterini Amaniti
- Anesthesiology Department, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Paul Zarogoulidis
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
- Anesthesiology Department, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Stelian Mogoantă
- Department of Pharmacology and Department of Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania
| | - Isaak Kesisoglou
- 3rd Department of Surgery, “AHEPA” University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Medical School, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Chrysanthi Sardeli
- Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
| |
Collapse
|