Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities

PURPOSE

The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation

AIM

To date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality.

METHODS

All colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included. Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging.

RESULTS

Eight thousand one hundred and seventy three patients received SACT in the adjuvant setting, and 7,683 patients in the metastatic setting. Adjusted severe acute toxicity rates varied between hospitals from 11% to 49% for the adjuvant cohort, and from 25% to 67% for the metastatic cohort. Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than two standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. In the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate. Overall, 12 hospitals (12%) had toxicity rates more than 2SD above the national mean, and 11 (10%) had rates more than 2SD below.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to improve care.

Effectiveness of bevacizumab and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer across selected public hospitals in Queensland

AIM

Metastatic colorectal cancer has a large burden of disease in Australia. Medical therapy is fundamental to extending survival and improving quality of life. The benefits of two costly medicines, bevacizumab and cetuximab, used in Australia remain unclear. The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine the use of these two medicines in metastatic colorectal cancer across five public hospitals in south east Queensland and to compare clinical outcomes to those of published clinical trials.

METHODS

We extracted data from the chemotherapy prescribing database for patients planned for bevacizumab or cetuximab therapy between 2009 and 2013. Median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

There were 490 bevacizumab-containing protocols planned and 292 patients received at least one dose of bevacizumab. Median overall survival was 17.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.4-19.3). Of 208 planned cetuximab-containing protocols, 134 patients received at least one dose of cetuximab. Median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.6-12.0). Thirty-day mortality rates from date of first dose were 0.7% for bevacizumab and 7.5% for cetuximab.

CONCLUSION

Overall survival of patients receiving bevacizumab and cetuximab was consistent with clinical trials, providing some assurance that benefits seen in trials are observed in usual practice. This study provides a methodology of using routinely collected health data for clinical monitoring and research. Because of the high cost of these medicines and the lack of toxicity data in this study, further analysis in the postmarketing setting should be explored.