Cancer of the head and neck: a set of indicators based on register and administrative data

Patterns and quality of care for head and neck cancer in Belgium: A population-based study

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the quality of care for patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx or larynx in Belgium.

METHODS

Data of the Belgian Cancer Registry were coupled with health insurance data and hospital discharge data. Quality of care and the association with hospital volume were evaluated based on six quality indicators.

RESULTS

Half of the patients were treated with primary radiotherapy, with or without systemic therapy (49.7%) and 38.1% with surgery, with or without (neo)adjuvant therapy. Single-modality treatment was provided to 78.1% of early-disease patients. Of the patients with cN0 disease, 56.4% underwent neck dissection. Postoperative radiotherapy was completed timely in 48.5% of patients. Concomitant chemotherapy was administered to 58.2% of patients <70 years with locally advanced disease. Imaging of the neck after radiotherapy was performed appropriately in 32.7% of patients. Variability between centres was considerable. No clear relationship between hospital volume and results of the individual QIs was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that for the measured QIs, targets are not met and variability between centres is considerable. Through individual feedback, centres are motivated to improve the quality of care for head and neck cancer patients in Belgium.

Impact of a dedicated radiologist as a member of the head and neck tumour board: a single-institution experience

The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of radiologic image review performed by experienced radiologists in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) for head and neck cancers (HNCs). We performed a retrospective review of cases discussed at MDT meetings from April 2014 to March 2017 for which radiologic review was required. All changes in the former radiologic report were collected and classified as follows: 1) modifications of radiological reports (patients for whom the treatment strategy had not been defined at the moment of MDT meeting) and 2) modifications in treatment strategy (patients for whom treatment strategy had previously been defined and subsequently modified according to the outcome of radiologic revision). The latter subgroup was further categorised as “major changes” and as “minor changes”. A total of 540 cases were retrieved. Imaging review was required at the time of tumour diagnosis in 310 (57.4%) cases. Most patients (69%) had advanced stage tumours (III and IV). In 262 (48%) cases, no change of the initial radiologic report was made. In a total of 144 (27%) cases, the available imaging was not considered sufficient for a final indication to treatment and further imaging was required. In the remaining 134 (25%) cases, radiologic review led to a modification of either tumour staging (55%) or treatment strategy (45%). Specifically, major and minor modifications were applied in 44 (13%) and 17 (11%) of the cases considered, respectively. Among 134 patients for whom the radiologic review led to stage/treatment modification, follow-up was available for 118. In all but one patient, we could confirm the original reports were correctly modified per MDT discussion results. Our data strongly support the importance of including an experienced radiologist as a core member of the MDT for HNCs.