Indicators of breast cancer severity and appropriateness of surgery based on hospital administrative data in the Lazio Region, Italy

BACKGROUND: Administrative data can serve as an easily available source for epidemiological and evaluation studies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of hospital administrative data to determine breast cancer severity and the appropriateness of surgical treatment. METHODS: the study population consisted of 398 patients randomly selected from a cohort of women hospitalized for first-time breast cancer surgery in the Lazio Region, Italy. Tumor severity was defined in three different ways: 1) tumor size; 2) clinical stage (TNM); 3) severity indicator based on HIS data (SI). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the severity indicator in evaluating appropriateness of surgery were calculated. The accuracy of HIS data was measured using Kappa statistic. RESULTS: Most of 387 cases were classified as T1 and T2 (tumor size), more than 70% were in stage I or II and the SI classified 60% of cases in medium-low category. Variation from guidelines indications identified under and over treatments. The accuracy of the SI to predict under-treatment was relatively good (58% of all procedures classified as under-treatment using pT where also classified as such using SI), and even greater predicting over-treatment (88.2% of all procedures classified as over treatment using pT where also classified as such using SI). Agreement between clinical chart and hospital discharge reports was K = 0.35. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that administrative data need to be used with caution when evaluating surgical appropriateness, mainly because of the limited ability of SI to predict tumor size and the questionable quality of HIS data as observed in other studies

High-Volume versus Low-Volume for Esophageal Resections for Cancer: The Essential Role of Case-Mix Adjustments based on Clinical Data

Background: Most studies addressing the volume-outcome relationship in complex surgical procedures use hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure and are rarely based on detailed clinical data. The lack of reliable information about comorbidities and tumor stages makes the conclusions of these studies debatable. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for esophageal resections for cancer in low- versus high-volume hospitals, using an extensive set of variables concerning case-mix and outcome measures, including long-term survival. Methods: Clinical data, from 903 esophageal resections performed between January 1990 and December 1999, were retrieved from the original patients' files. Three hundred and forty-two patients were operated on in 11 low-volume hospitals (<7 resections/year) and 561 in a single high-volume center. Results: Mortality and morbidity rates were significantly lower in the high-volume center, which had an in-hospital mortality of 5 vs 13% (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume, but also the presence of comorbidity proved to be strong prognostic factors predicting in-hospital mortality (ORs 3.05 and 2.34). For stage I and II disease, there was a significantly better 5-year survival in the high-volume center. (P = .04). Conclusions: Hospital volume and comorbidity patterns are important determinants of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery. Strong clinical endpoints such as in-hospital mortality and survival can be used as performance indicators, only if they are joined by reliable case-mix information

Certification of breast centres in Germany: proof of concept for a prototypical example of quality assurance in multidisciplinary cancer care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The main study objectives were: to develop a set of requirements of comprehensive breast centres; to establish a nationwide voluntary certification programme for breast centres based on such requirements, a certified quality management system (QMS), and scheduled independent, external audits and periodic recertification; and to demonstrate the general acceptance of such a certification programme with a view to introducing similar certification programmes for other major cancers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Breast centres introduced a QMS and voluntarily participated in an external certification procedure based on guideline-derived Requirements of Breast Centres specifically developed for the application procedure, all subsequent audits and recertification. All data (numbers of pending and successful applications, sites/centre, etc.) were collected by a newly founded, independent organisation for certification of cancer services delivery. Data analysis was descriptive.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Requirements of Breast Centres were developed by the German Cancer Society (DKG), the German Society of Senology (DGS) and other relevant specialist medical societies in the form of a questionnaire comprising 185 essential items based on evidence-based guidelines and the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists' (EUSOMA) requirements of specialist breast units. From late 2002 to mid 2008, the number of participating breast centres rose from 1 to 175. As of mid 2008, 77% of an estimated 50,000 new breast cancers in Germany were diagnosed and treated at certified breast centres, 78% of which were single-site centres.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Nationwide voluntary certification of breast centres is feasible and well accepted in Germany. Dual certification of breast centres that involves certification of breast services to guideline-derived requirements in conjunction with independent certification of a mandatory QMS can serve as a model for other multidisciplinary site-specific cancer centres.</p