Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

Background: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. Results: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. Conclusion: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination : A systematic review and meta-analysis

Research Funding National Health and Medical Research Council. Grant Number: APP1194679 World Health Organization Article Funding Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Sydney, as part of the Wiley - The University of Sydney agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination:A systematic review and meta-analysis

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.</p

Proposing Essential Medicines to Treat Cancer: Methodologies, Processes, and Outcomes

PURPOSE: A great proportion of the world's cancer burden resides in low- and middle-income countries where cancer care infrastructure is often weak or absent. Although treatment of cancer is multidisciplinary, involving surgery, radiation, systemic therapies, pathology, radiology, and other specialties, selection of medicines that have impact and are affordable has been particularly challenging in resource-constrained settings. In 2014, at the invitation of the WHO, the Union for International Cancer Control convened experts to develop an approach to propose essential cancer medicines to be included in the WHO Model Essential Medicines Lists (EML) for Adults and for Children, as well as a resulting new list of cancer medicines. METHODS: Experts identified 29 cancer types with potential for maximal treatment impact, on the basis of incidence and benefit of systemic therapies. More than 90 oncology experts from all continents drafted and reviewed disease-based documents outlining epidemiology, diagnostic needs, treatment options, and benefits and toxicities. RESULTS: Briefing documents were created for each disease, along with associated standard treatment regimens, resulting in a list of 52 cancer medicines. A comprehensive application was submitted as a revision to the existing cancer medicines on the WHO Model Lists. In May 2015, the WHO announced the addition of 16 medicines to the Adult EML and nine medicines to the Children's EML. CONCLUSION: The list of medications proposed, and the ability to link each recommended medicine to specific diseases, should allow public officials to apply resources most effectively in developing and supporting nascent or growing cancer treatment programs

Building capacity for sustainable research programmes for cancer in Africa

Cancer research in Africa will have a pivotal role in cancer control planning in this continent. However, environments (such as those in academic or clinical settings) with limited research infrastructure (laboratories, biorespositories, databases) coupled with inadequate funding and other resources have hampered African scientists from carrying out rigorous research. In September 2012, over 100 scientists with expertise in cancer research in Africa met in London to discuss the challenges in performing high-quality research, and to formulate the next steps for building sustainable, comprehensive and multi-disciplinary programmes relevant to Africa. This was the first meeting among five major organizations: the African Organisation for Research and Training in Africa (AORTIC), the Africa Oxford Cancer Foundation (AfrOx), and the National Cancer Institutes (NCI) of Brazil, France and the USA. This article summarizes the discussions and recommendations of this meeting, including the next steps required to create sustainable and impactful research programmes that will enable evidenced-based cancer control approaches and planning at the local, regional and national levels