Breast Cancer Care Quality Indicators in Spain: A Systematic Review

Adherence to Quality Indicators for Breast Cancer Management in a Multidisciplinary Training Program

Background: The management of early breast cancer (BC) needs supervision and skill maintenance, and should be performed by specialists working as a team in multidisciplinary breast units. This approach aims to improve the long-term survival and quality of life of patients with BC. Methods: This was a prospective observational study including patients newly diagnosed with operable BC. The study encompassed the pre-surgical phase, throughout the diagnostic and surgical workout, and included post-therapeutic master multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) sessions, between 2019 and 2022. Results: We enrolled 280 patients with BC from eight breast units. The Senonetwork indicators regarding diagnosis, waiting time, loco-regional treatment, and adjuvant therapy were collected for each patient discussed. Conclusions: Overall, the majority of quality indicators were respected among breast units. The most critical issue referred to timing indicators: more than 30 days from MTM to surgery, more than 42 days from diagnosis to surgery, and more than 60 days from the first screening mammogram to surgery for many patients. Some aspects of the histopathological diagnosis of intraductal BC also need to be improved. Furthermore, other critical issues in our study regarded some aesthetical indicators, demonstrating low interest in these essential quality indicators.

Colorectal cancer treatment guidelines and shared decision making quality and reporting assessment: Systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Physicians must share decisions and choose personalised treatments regarding patients´ beliefs and values.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the quality of the recommendations about shared decision making (SDM) in colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Guidelines were systematically reviewed following prospective registration (Prospero: CRD42021286146) without language restrictions searching 15 databases and 59 professional society websites from January 2010 to November 2021. A validated 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was employed to extract data in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 134 guidelines. Only 46/134 (34.3 %) mentioned SDM. Fifteen (11.1 %) made clear, precise and actionable recommendations, while 9/134 (6.7 %) indicated the strength of the SDM-related recommendations. CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews reported SDM more often than those based on consensus or reviews (35.9 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.031). Guidelines that reported following quality tools (i.e., AGREE II) more commonly commented about SDM than when it was not reported (75.0 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Most of the CRC and anal treatment guidelines did not mention SDM and it was superficial. Guidelines based on systematic reviews and those using quality tools demonstrated better reporting of SDM. Recommendations about SDM in these guidelines merit urgent improvement.

A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p  =  0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.

Women's Health and Gynecology: Old Challenges and New Insights

The complexity of women's health goes far beyond medical and surgical knowledge and the achievements of the clinical specialty of Obstetrics and Gynecology, spanning not just the research dimensions of molecular biology, genetics, epidemiology, or health services but also being influenced by gender, social, and psychological relevant factors [...].

Evaluation of Quality Indicators of Breast Cancer Management at a Tertiary Cancer Center in Nepal

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the second commonest cancer among female in Nepal. This is our first attempt to audit breast cancer management in our institute and compare with standard quality indicators (QIs) available.

METHODS

The retrospective study included 104 female patients with breast cancer who had taken treatment at Bhaktapur Cancer Hospital in 1 year. Participants were selected on the basis of convenience sampling. Of 33 QIs in breast cancer management according to European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists guidelines, 19 QIs were chosen relevant to our setup. These QIs were calculated for all patients and compared with the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists standard target. Frequencies and percentages were calculated and presented in tables. Binomial 95% of the rates for QI adherence were also calculated for each QI.

RESULTS

One hundred four patients had a median age of 47.5 years (range 24-70 years). Applicable QIs were in the range of 5-15 with a mean of 9.66 per patient. Of 19 evaluable QIs, very high adherence rates were observed in six QIs, high adherence in three Qis, and low adherences in 10 QIs. High adherence rates were for QI 5 and QI 10a, which were 88.46% and 94.73%, respectively. The low compliance was for QI 1, QI 4a, QI 8, QI 9d, QI 10b, QI 11a, QI 11b, QI 13b, QI 13e, and 14b, which were 53.84%, 78.21%, 0%, 83.16%, 76.92%, 36.0%, 33.33%, 4.76%, 30.55%, and 10.81%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There are several QIs that have low levels of adherence in our setting and suggest that there is significant room for improvement. We will be continuing auditing these QIs regularly to improve our quality of care.