Challenges of payment-for-performance in health care and other public services – design, implementation and evaluation

Interest in mechanisms linking varying proportions of provider payments to achieving certain performance targets has recently grown in health care and other public services in an attempt to solve the cost-quality conundrum. Against the backdrop of this enthusiasm, it is important to review the challenges posed in the process of designing, implementing and evaluating of pay-for-performance (P4P) in health care and in other UK public services

National Population-Based Study Comparing Treatment-Related Toxicity in Men Who Received Intensity Modulated Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radical Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare, in a national population-based study, severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radical intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients treated with IMRT (n=6933) or 3D-CRT (n=16,289) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013 in the English National Health Service were identified using cancer registry data, the National Radiotherapy Dataset, and Hospital Episodes Statistics, the administrative database of care episodes in National Health Service hospitals. We developed a coding system that identifies severe toxicity (at least grade 3 according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scoring system) according to the presence of a procedure and a corresponding diagnostic code in patients' Hospital Episodes Statistics records after radiation therapy. A competing risks regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), comparing the incidence of severe GI and GU complications after IMRT and 3D-CRT, adjusting for patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: The use of IMRT, as opposed to 3D-CRT, increased from 3.1% in 2010 to 64.7% in 2013. Patients who received IMRT were less likely than those receiving 3D-CRT to experience severe GI toxicity (4.9 vs 6.5 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.72) but had similar levels of GU toxicity (2.3 vs 2.4 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients who received radical radiation therapy using IMRT were less likely to experience severe GI toxicity, and they had similar GU toxicity compared with those who received 3D-CRT. These findings in an unselected "real-world" population support the use of IMRT, but further cost-effectiveness studies are urgently required

Patient-Reported Functional Outcomes After Hypofractionated or Conventionally Fractionated Radiation for Prostate Cancer: A National Cohort Study in England.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to determine patient-reported functional outcomes in men with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing moderately hypofractionated (H-RT) or conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (C-RT) in a national cohort study. PATIENDS AND METHODS: All men diagnosed with PCa between April 2014 and September 2016 in the English National Health Service undergoing C-RT or H-RT were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit and mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. We estimated differences in patient-reported urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function-Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short-form 26 domain scores on a 0 to 100 scale-and health-related quality of life-EQ-5D-5L on a 0 to 1 scale-using linear regression with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment-related factors in addition to GI and genitourinary baseline function, with higher scores representing better outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 17,058 men in the cohort, 77% responded: 8,432 men received C-RT (64.2%) and 4,699 H-RT (35.8%). Men in the H-RT group were older (age ≥ 70 years: 67.5% v 60.9%), fewer men had locally advanced disease (56.5% v 71.3%), were less likely to receive androgen-deprivation therapy (79.5% v 87.8%), and slightly more men had pretreatment genitourinary procedures (24.2% v 21.2%). H-RT was associated with small increases in adjusted mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short-form 26 sexual (3.3 points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 4.5; P < .001) and hormonal function scores (3.2 points; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.6; P < .001). These differences failed to meet established thresholds for a clinically meaningful change. There were no statistically significant differences in urinary or bowel function and quality of life. CONCLUSION: This is the first national cohort study comparing functional outcomes after H-RT and C-RT reported by patients. These real-world results further support the use of H-RT as the standard for radiation therapy in men with nonmetastatic PCa

Does Research from Clinical Trials in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatment Translate into Access to Treatments for Patients in the "Real World"? A Systematic Review

CONTEXT: Since 2015 there have been major advances in the management of primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) following the publication of key clinical trials that demonstrated significant clinical benefits with docetaxel chemotherapy or novel hormone therapy (NHT) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Despite these advances, there is evidence to show that these treatments are not being utilised for mHSPC in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the utilisation of docetaxel and NHT in mHSPC in routine practice and the determinants of variation in their use. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE and Embase were searched systematically for studies on utilisation of treatments for primary mHSPC that were based on regional or national data sets and published after January 2005. Study results were summarised using a narrative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirteen papers were included in the analysis, six full-text articles and seven abstracts, on studies that included a total of 166 876 patients. The utilisation rate of treatment intensification with either docetaxel or NHT (enzalutamide, apalutamide, or abiraterone) in addition to ADT ranged from 9.3% to 38.1% across the studies. Younger, White patients with fewer comorbidities and living in more urban settings were more likely to be prescribed treatment intensification. Patients treated in private academic institutions by oncologists were more likely to receive docetaxel or NHT. Socioeconomic status did not impact receipt of systemic therapy. NHT utilisation rates appear to have increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the need to change the approach to the treatment of primary mHSPC in the real world by harnessing the practice-changing results from recent trials in this setting to optimise upfront systemic therapy for this patient population. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the use of treatments for primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer that showed a benefit in key clinical trials. We found that these treatments are underused, particularly among certain patient groups

Public reporting of outcomes in radiation oncology: the National Prostate Cancer Audit.

The public reporting of patient outcomes is crucial for quality improvement and informing patient choice. However, outcome reporting in radiotherapy, despite being a major component of cancer control, is extremely sparse globally. Public reporting has many challenges, including difficulties in defining meaningful measures of treatment quality, limitations in data infrastructure, and fragmented health insurance schemes. The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA), done in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), shows that it is feasible to develop outcome indicators for radiotherapy treatment, including patient-reported outcomes. The NPCA provides a transparent mechanism for comparing the performance of all NHS providers, with results accessible to patients, providers, and policy makers. Using the NPCA as a case study, we discuss the development of a radiotherapy-outcomes reporting programme, its impact and future potential, and the challenges and opportunities to develop this approach across other tumour types and in different health systems

Impact of cancer service centralisation on the radical treatment of men with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer: A national cross-sectional analysis in England.

In many countries, specialist cancer services are centralised to improve outcomes. We explored how centralisation affects the radical treatment of high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in the English NHS. 79,085 patients diagnosed with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer in England (April 2014 to March 2016) were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Poisson models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) for undergoing radical treatment by whether men were diagnosed at a regional co-ordinating centre ('hub'), for having surgery by the presence of surgical services on-site, and for receiving high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) in addition to external beam radiotherapy by its regional availability. Men were equally likely to receive radical treatment, irrespective of whether they were diagnosed in a hub (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.08). Men were more likely to have surgery if they were diagnosed at a hospital with surgical services on site (RR 1.24, 1.10-1.40), and more likely to receive additional HDR-BT if they were diagnosed at a hospital with direct regional access to this service (RR 6.16, 2.94-12.92). Centralisation of specialist cancer services does not affect whether men receive radical treatment, but it does affect treatment modality. Centralisation may have a negative impact on access to specific treatment modalities

Treatment-Related Toxicity Using Prostate-Only Versus Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Node Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: A National Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: There is a debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation for the treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer. This study compared the toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the prostate and the pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT) with prostate-only IMRT (PO-IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with IMRT in the English National Health Service between 2010 and 2013 were identified by using data from the Cancer Registry, the National Radiotherapy Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics, an administrative database of all hospital admissions. Follow-up was available up to December 31, 2015. Validated indicators were used to identify patients with severe toxicity according to the presence of both a procedure code and diagnostic code in patient Hospital Episode Statistics records. A competing risks regression analysis, with adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) by comparing GI and genitourinary (GU) complications for PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT. RESULTS: Three-year cumulative incidence in the PPLN-IMRT (n = 780) and PO-IMRT (n = 3,065) groups was 14% for both groups for GI toxicity, and 9% and 8% for GU toxicity, respectively. Patients receiving PPLN-IMRT and PO-IMRT had similar levels of severe GI (adjusted sHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.24; P = .97) and GU (adjusted sHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.46; P = .50) toxicity rates. CONCLUSION: Including PLNs in radiation fields for high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer is not associated with increased GI or GU toxicity at 3 years. Additional follow-up is required to answer questions about its impact on late GU toxicity. Results from ongoing trials will provide insight into the anticancer effectiveness of PLN irradiation

Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the complications of transrectal (TR) compared to transperineal prostate (TP) biopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2017 in England were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit. Administrative hospital data were then used to categorize the type of prostate biopsy and subsequent complications requiring hospital admission. Administrative hospital data were used to identify patients staying overnight immediately after biopsy and those readmitted separately for hospital admissions because of sepsis, urinary retention or haematuria. Procedure-related mortality and total length of hospital stay within 30 days were also recorded. Generalized linear models were used to calculate adjusted risk differences (aRDs). RESULTS: A total of 73 630 patients undergoing prostate biopsy were identified. Those undergoing TP biopsy (n = 13 723) were more likely to have an overnight hospital stay (12.3% vs 2.4%; aRD 9.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1-12.3), were less likely to be readmitted because of sepsis (1.0% vs 1.4%; aRD -0.4%, CI -0.6 to -0.2), and were more likely to be readmitted with urinary retention (1.9% vs 1.0%; aRD 1.1%, CI 0.7-1.4) than those undergoing a TR biopsy (n = 59 907). There were no significant differences in the risk of haematuria or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that TP biopsy had a lower risk of readmission for sepsis but a higher risk of readmission for urinary retention than TR biopsy. Use of the TP route would prevent one readmission for sepsis in 278 patients at the cost of three additional patients readmitted for urinary retention

Identifying skeletal-related events for prostate cancer patients in routinely collected hospital data.

BACKGROUND: Non-osteoporotic skeletal-related events (SREs) are clinically important markers of disease progression in prostate cancer. We developed and validated an approach to identify SREs in men with prostate cancer using routinely-collected data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2010 and December 2013 were identified in the National Prostate Cancer Audit, based on English cancer registry data. A coding framework was developed based on diagnostic and procedure codes in linked national administrative hospital and routinely-collected radiotherapy data to identify SREs occurring before December 2015. Two coding definitions of SREs were assessed based on whether the SRE codes were paired with a bone metastasis code ('specific definition') or used in isolation ('sensitive definition'). We explored the validity of both definitions by comparing the cumulative incidence of SREs from time of diagnosis according to prostate cancer stage at diagnosis with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: We identified 40,063, 25,234 and 13,968 patients diagnosed with localised, locally advanced and metastatic disease, respectively. Using the specific definition, we found that the 5-year cumulative incidence of SREs was 1.0 % in patients with localised disease, 6.0 % in patients with locally advanced disease, and 42.3 % in patients with metastatic disease. Using the sensitive definition, the corresponding cumulative incidence figures were 9.0 %, 14.9 %, and 44.4 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: The comparison of the cumulative incidence of SREs identified in routinely collected hospital data, based on a specific coding definition in patients diagnosed with different prostate cancer stage, supports their validity as a clinically important marker of cancer progression

Toxicity of Pelvic Lymph Node Irradiation With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for High-Risk and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study Using Patient-Reported Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the toxicity of additional pelvic lymph node irradiation in men receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after IMRT to the prostate only (PO-IMRT) versus the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes (PPLN-IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients who received a diagnosis of high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer in the English National Health Service between April 2014 and September 2016 who were treated with IMRT were mailed a questionnaire at least 18 months after diagnosis. Patient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal functional domains on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes, and generic health-related quality of life were collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version and EQ-5D-5L. We used linear regression to compare PPLN-IMRT versus PO-IMRT with adjustment for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 7017 men who received a questionnaire, 5468 (77.9%) responded; 4196 (76.7%) had received PO-IMRT and 1272 (23.3%) PPLN-IMRT. Adjusted differences in the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version domain scores were smaller than 1 (P always >.2), except for sexual function, with men who had PPNL-IMRT reporting a lower mean score (adjusted difference, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.7; P = .002). This did not represent a clinically relevant difference. There was no significant difference in health-related quality of life (P = .5). CONCLUSIONS: Additional pelvic lymph node irradiation does not lead to clinically meaningful increases in the toxicity of IMRT for prostate cancer according to patient-reported functional outcomes and health-related quality of life