Development of a Standardized Set of Patient-centered Outcomes for Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Effort for a Unified Approach

AbstractBackgroundThere are no universally monitored outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer, making it challenging to compare health outcomes between populations.ObjectiveWe sought to develop a standard set of outcomes relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer to follow during routine clinical care.Design, setting, and participantsThe International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled a multidisciplinary working group to develop the set.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe used a modified Delphi method to achieve consensus regarding the outcomes, measures, and case mix factors included.Results and limitationsThe 25 members of the multidisciplinary international working group represented academic and nonacademic centers, registries, and patients. Recognizing the heterogeneity of men with advanced prostate cancer, the group defined the scope as men with all stages of incurable prostate cancer (metastatic and biochemical recurrence ineligible for further curative therapy). We defined outcomes important to all men, such as overall survival, and measures specific to subgroups, such as time to metastasis. Measures gathered from clinical data include measures of disease control. We also identified patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as degree of urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction, mood symptoms, and pain control.ConclusionsThe international multidisciplinary group identified clinical data and PROMs that serve as a basis for international health outcome comparisons and quality-of-care assessments. The set will be revised annually.Patient summaryOur international group has recommended a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes to be followed during routine care for all men with advanced prostate cancer

Ensuring access to post-cancer breast reconstructions:COVID-19 lessons from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry

Background: COVID-19 has impacted breast implant surgery for oncological and non-oncological patients worldwide. This population-based study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to reconstructive and cosmetic breast implant surgery in the Netherlands using real-world data to describe trends, and to identify lessons to prevent future capacity problems within (inter)national healthcare. Methods: This longitudinal study included patients undergoing breast implant surgery from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry. For 2020, the first COVID-19 wave, intermediate period, and second wave were defined. We compared data from during the pandemic to a pre-pandemic (2019) reference year, assessing differences in the number of registered breast implants, and patient and surgery-related characteristics. Results: A total of 34133 breast implants (17459 patients) were included. Compared to 2019, fewer implants were registered for post-cancer (n=484; -14.7%), cosmetic (n=480; -3.6%), and gender-affirming indications (n=104; -38.0%) during 2020. Fewer implants were registered in academic (n=196; -22.0%) and regional hospitals (n=1591; -16.5%), but more in private clinics (n=725; +10.1%). After the first wave, up to twice as many implants were registered in private clinics compared to 2019. No differences were found in characteristics of patients undergoing surgery in 2020 versus 2019. Conclusion: Hospital-based reconstructive and gender-affirming surgery were heavily impacted during the pandemic, while private-clinic-based cosmetic surgery quickly recovered. These outcomes are useful to fuel discussions about how healthcare could be reorganized in times of capacity problems. We suggest exploring options to deploy private clinics for ambulatory surgery aiming to keep hospital capacity available for acutely ill patients

Impact of 70-gene signature use on adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in patients with estrogen receptor–positive early breast cancer: Results of a prospective cohort study

Purpose Gene-expression profiles increasingly are used in addition to conventional prognostic factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) decisions. The Dutch guideline suggests use of validated gene-expression profiles in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) –positive, early-stage breast cancer without overt lymph node metastases. We aimed to assess the impact of a 70-gene signature (70-GS) test on CT decisions in patients with ER-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Patients and Methods In a prospective, observational, multicenter study in patients younger than 70 years old who had undergone surgery for ER-positive, early-stage breast cancer, physicians were asked whether they intended to administer adjuvant CT before deployment of the 70-GS test and after the test result was available. Results Between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, 660 patients, treated in 33 hospitals, were enrolled. Fifty-one percent of patients had pT1cN0, BRII, HER2-Neu-negative breast cancer. On the basis of conventional clinicopathological characteristics, physicians recommended CT in 270 (41%) of the 660 patients and recommended withholding CT in 107 (16%) of the 660 patients. For the remaining 43% of patients, the physicians were unsure and unable to give advice before 70-GS testing. In patients for whom CT was initially recommended or not recommended, 56% and 59%, respectively, were assigned to a low-risk profile by the 70-GS (k, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.11). After disclosure of the 70-GS test result, the preliminary advice was changed in 51% of patients who received a recommendation before testing; the definitive CT recommendation of the physician was in line with the 70-GS result in 96% of patients. Conclusion In this prospective, multicenter study in a selection of patients with ER-positive, early-stage breast cancer, 70-GS use changed the physician-intended recommendation to administer CT in half of the patients

Using a Digital Implant Catalog Improves Data Quality and Reduces Administrative Burden in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry

Background: Correct registration of implant characteristics is essential to monitor implant safety within implant registries. Currently, in the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR), these characteristics are being registered manually by plastic surgeons, resulting in administrative burden and potentially incorrect data entry. Objectives: This study evaluated the accuracy of manually registered implant data, possible consequences of incorrect data, and the potential of a Digital Implant Catalog (DIC) on increasing data quality and reducing the administrative burden. Methods: Manually entered implant characteristics (fill, shape, coating, texture) of newly inserted breast implants in the DBIR, from 2015 to 2019, were compared with the corresponding implant characteristics in the DIC. Reference numbers were employed to match characteristics between the 2 databases. The DIC was based on manufacturers' product catalogs and set as the gold standard. Results: A total of 57,361 DBIR records could be matched with the DIC. Accuracy of implant characteristics varied from 70.6% to 98.0%, depending on the implant characteristic. The largest discrepancy was observed for "texture"and the smallest for "coating."All manually registered implant characteristics resulted in different conclusions about implant performance compared with the DIC (P < 0.01). Implementation of the DIC reduced the administrative burden from 14 to 7 variables (50%). Conclusions: Implementation of a DIC increases data quality in the DBIR and reduces the administrative burden. However, correct registration of reference numbers in the registry by plastic surgeons remains key for adequate matching. Furthermore, all implant manufacturers should be involved, and regular updates of the DIC are required

Impact of 70-gene signature use on adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in patients with estrogen receptor–positive early breast cancer : Results of a prospective cohort study

Purpose Gene-expression profiles increasingly are used in addition to conventional prognostic factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) decisions. The Dutch guideline suggests use of validated gene-expression profiles in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) –positive, early-stage breast cancer without overt lymph node metastases. We aimed to assess the impact of a 70-gene signature (70-GS) test on CT decisions in patients with ER-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Patients and Methods In a prospective, observational, multicenter study in patients younger than 70 years old who had undergone surgery for ER-positive, early-stage breast cancer, physicians were asked whether they intended to administer adjuvant CT before deployment of the 70-GS test and after the test result was available. Results Between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, 660 patients, treated in 33 hospitals, were enrolled. Fifty-one percent of patients had pT1cN0, BRII, HER2-Neu-negative breast cancer. On the basis of conventional clinicopathological characteristics, physicians recommended CT in 270 (41%) of the 660 patients and recommended withholding CT in 107 (16%) of the 660 patients. For the remaining 43% of patients, the physicians were unsure and unable to give advice before 70-GS testing. In patients for whom CT was initially recommended or not recommended, 56% and 59%, respectively, were assigned to a low-risk profile by the 70-GS (k, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.11). After disclosure of the 70-GS test result, the preliminary advice was changed in 51% of patients who received a recommendation before testing; the definitive CT recommendation of the physician was in line with the 70-GS result in 96% of patients. Conclusion In this prospective, multicenter study in a selection of patients with ER-positive, early-stage breast cancer, 70-GS use changed the physician-intended recommendation to administer CT in half of the patients

Breast magnetic resonance imaging use in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with less mastectomies in large ductal cancers but not in lobular cancers

Background To assess the impact of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use on surgical outcome per histological breast cancer subtype in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients and methods All patients aged 18–70 years who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage I–III invasive breast cancer in the Netherlands in the years 2011–2013 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with cT4 tumours were excluded from the analysis. Use of breast MRI and impact on surgical treatment, resection margins and detection of contralateral breast cancer were analysed by multivariable analyses. Results Breast MRI was performed in 2879 (83.9%) out of 3433 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–1.71 for 18–50 years compared with 50–70 years), larger tumour stage (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.15–1.86] for cT3, compared to cT1–2 tumours) and multifocality (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04–1.61, versus unifocality) were associated with increased breast MRI use. In ductal breast cancer, after stratification for cT-status, breast MRI use is associated with a significant lower OR for mastectomy as final surgery in cT3 tumours (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21–0.99). Resection margin involvement and detection of contralateral breast cancer were not associated with breast MRI use. Conclusion In patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the use of breast MRI was associated with a reduced mastectomy rate, particularly in patients with large invasive ductal breast tumours but not in patients with lobular breast cancer

Clinical auditing as an instrument for quality improvement in breast cancer care in the Netherlands: The national NABON Breast Cancer Audit

Background In 2011, the NABON Breast Cancer Audit (NBCA) was instituted as a nation-wide audit to address quality of breast cancer care and guideline adherence in the Netherlands. The development of the NBCA and the results of 4 years of auditing are described. Methods Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer or in situ carcinoma (DCIS) and information regarding diagnosis and treatment are collected in all hospitals (n = 92) in the Netherlands. Thirty-two quality indicators measuring care structure, processes and outcomes were evaluated over time and compared between hospitals. Results The NBCA contains data of 56,927 patients (7,649 DCIS and 49,073 invasive cancers). Patients being discussed in pre- and post-operative multidisciplinary team meetings improved (2011: 83% and 91%; 2014: 98% and 99%, respectively) over the years. Tumour margin positivity rates after breast-conserving surgery for invasive cancer requiring re-operation were consistently low (∼5%). Other indicators, for example, the use of an MRI-scan prior to surgery or immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy showed considerable hospital variation. Conclusions Results shown an overall high quality of breast cancer care in all hospitals in the Netherlands. For most quality indicators improvement was seen over time, while some indicators showed yet unexplained variatio

Defining a standard set of patient-centred outcomes for lung cancer

In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation (“the set”) on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment. The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons. We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally