Brustzentren: Rationale, funktionelles Konzept, Definition und Zertifizierung

[Diagnosis of breast diseases in a certified breast center]

The beginning of the 21st century has seen immense improvements in the quality of diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer due to several, simultaneous developments. In particular, the introduction of a certification program from the German Cancer Society based on level III guidelines has enhanced the transparency and quality of treatment of breast diseases for all actors. As a result, patients have benefited from intensified cooperation especially between core disciplines in breast disease, gynecology, pathology, and radiology. The standardized and synoptic reading of multiple diagnostic modalities has enabled precise sampling of histologic specimen, which has improved prognosis and the successful individualization of therapy. In this article the benefits of breast cancer diagnosis and therapy in a certified breast center are illustrated using four case examples.

Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen den Auditergebnissen und den Patientinnenerfahrungen in Brustzentren in Nordrhein-Westfalen?

Ziel der Studie In Nordrhein-Westfalen soll Brustkrebs zur Wahrung und Verbesserung der Versorgungsqualität nur in ÄKzert-zertifizierten Brustzentren operiert werden. Dafür müssen sich alle Zentren 3-jährlich einem Auditprozess unterziehen und jährlich an einer Patient*innenbefragung teilnehmen. Während es zum Nutzen von zertifizierten Zentren bezüglich der Behandlungsqualität schon einige Studien gibt, soll nun untersucht werden, ob sich das Ergebnis des Auditierungsprozesses in den Erfahrungen der Patientinnen widerspiegelt.

Methodik Die quantitativen Ergebnisse aller Zertifizierungsauditberichte der Jahre 2014–2016 von Brustzentren in Nordrhein-Westfalen wurden mittels Mehrebenenanalysen mit verschiedenen Skalen einer jährlichen, poststationären, postalischen Befragung von Patient*innen mit primärem Mammakarzinom verknüpft.

Ergebnisse Es wurden Auditberichte und Befragungsdaten von 3016 Patientinnen aus 33 Brustzentren untersucht, dabei wurden nach Korrektur für multiples Testen keine statistisch signifikanten Zusammenhänge gefunden.

Schlussfolgerung Insgesamt zeigen sich keine Zusammenhänge zwischen den Ergebnissen eines Zentrums im Audit und den Patientinnenerfahrungen. Die Patientinnen scheinen ein spezifisches subjektives Erleben zu haben, das trotz der ausdrücklichen Forderung nach Patient*innenorientierung im Anforderungskatalog so nicht durch die Auditbesuche abgebildet werden kann. Das Ergebnis unterstreicht den Nutzen der jährlichen verpflichtenden Patient*innenbefragung, da sie weitergehende Informationen liefert, an die man durch andere Informationsquellen wie z. B. Zertifizierungsaudits offensichtlich nicht gelangt.

The adherence paradox: guideline deviations contribute to the increased 5-year survival of breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

In German breast cancer care, the S1-guidelines of the 1990s were substituted by national S3-guidelines in 2003. The application of guidelines became mandatory for certified breast cancer centers. The aim of the study was to assess guideline adherence according to time intervals and its impact on survival.

METHODS

Women with primary breast cancer treated in three rural hospitals of one German geographical district were included. A cohort study design encompassed women from 1996-97 (N = 389) and from 2003-04 (N = 488). Quality indicators were defined along inpatient therapy sequences for each time interval and distinguished as guideline-adherent and guideline-divergent medical decisions. Based on all of the quality indicators, a binary overall adherence index was defined and served as a group indicator in multivariate Cox-regression models. A corrected group analysis estimated adjusted 5-year survival curves.

RESULTS

From a total of 877 patients, 743 (85 %) and 504 (58 %) were included to assess 104 developed quality indicators and the resuming binary overall adherence index. The latter significantly increased from 13-15 % (1996-97) up to 33-35 % (2003-04). Within each time interval, no significant survival differences of guideline-adherent and -divergent treated patients were detected. Across time intervals and within the group of guideline-adherent treated patients only, survival increased but did not significantly differ between time intervals. Across time intervals and within the group of guideline-divergent treated patients only, survival increased and significantly differed between time intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Infrastructural efforts contributed to the increase of process quality of the examined certified breast cancer center. Paradoxically, a systematic impact on 5-year survival has been observed for patients treated divergently from the guideline recommendations. This is an indicator for the appropriate application of guidelines. A maximization of guideline-based decisions instead of the ubiquitous demand of guideline adherence maximization is advocated.

Multidisciplinary breast centres in Germany: a review and update of quality assurance through benchmarking and certification

PURPOSE

This review summarizes the rationale for the creation of breast centres and discusses the studies conducted in Germany to obtain proof of principle for a voluntary, external benchmarking programme and proof of concept for third-party dual certification of breast centres and their mandatory quality management systems to the German Cancer Society (DKG) and German Society of Senology (DGS) Requirements of Breast Centres and ISO 9001 or similar. In addition, we report the most recent data on benchmarking and certification of breast centres in Germany.

METHODS

Review and summary of pertinent publications. Literature searches to identify additional relevant studies. Updates from the DKG/DGS programmes.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in surrogate parameters as represented by structural and process quality indicators suggest that outcome quality is improving. The voluntary benchmarking programme has gained wide acceptance among DKG/DGS-certified breast centres. This is evidenced by early results from one of the largest studies in multidisciplinary cancer services research, initiated by the DKG and DGS to implement certified breast centres. The goal of establishing a nationwide network of certified breast centres in Germany can be considered largely achieved. Nonetheless the network still needs to be improved, and there is potential for optimization along the chain of care from mammography screening, interventional diagnosis and treatment through to follow-up. Specialization, guideline-concordant procedures as well as certification and recertification of breast centres remain essential to achieve further improvements in quality of breast cancer care and to stabilize and enhance the nationwide provision of high-quality breast cancer care.

[Certification of breast centers]

The primary focus of the establishment and certification of specialized cancer centers in the context of the National Cancer Plan is to improve the quality of care for patients with various carcinoma entities. The era of organ center certification started with the establishment of specialized breast cancer centers in line with the high incidence of breast cancer, the high mortality rate and the high level of interdisciplinary cooperation in the diagnosis and therapy of breast cancer. The introduction of quality management and external monitoring aims to provide high quality care in the diagnosis and therapy of breast cancer and is expected to improve long-term quality data (disease-free survival and overall survival) and to reduce mortality rates by about 25-30%. Certification requires the implementation of a quality management system and care provision structures assuring diagnosis and therapy according to the quality guidelines and recommendations of the specialist societies. Basic requirements for improving the quality of breast cancer patient care are centralization, specialization and interdisciplinarity. It has been demonstrated that the improvement of overall survival is associated with an increasing annual case load of a center, an increasing case load per surgeon per year, study participation and interdisciplinarity. Tumor documentation will be harmonized in the future by the establishment of local clinical cancer registries and cross-linking them with the National Cancer Registry. The data collection and analysis of several quality markers and current follow-up and survival data for each breast cancer patient will allow direct comparison of participating institutions. Individual breast cancer centers may demonstrate quality improvement longitudinally. Both certification and specialization require additional services which are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Preliminary data suggest that certified breast cancer centers are dependent on cross-financing by the participating departments of a hospital. Up to now cost-effective analyses for certified breast cancer centers are not available due to a substantial lack of data defining the additional financial burden.

Optimizing the quality of breast cancer care at certified german breast centers: a benchmarking analysis for 2003-2009 with a particular focus on the interdisciplinary specialty of radiation oncology

PURPOSE

A voluntary, external, science-based benchmarking program was established in Germany in 2003 to analyze and improve the quality of breast cancer (BC) care. Based on recent data from 2009, we aim to show that such analyses can also be performed for individual interdisciplinary specialties, such as radiation oncology (RO).

METHODS

Breast centers were invited to participate in the benchmarking program. Nine guideline-based quality indicators (QIs) were initially defined, reviewed annually, and modified, expanded, or abandoned accordingly. QI changes over time were analyzed descriptively, with particular emphasis on relevance to radiation oncology.

RESULTS

During the 2003-2009 study period, there were marked increases in breast center participation and postoperatively confirmed primary BCs. Starting from 9 process QIs, 15 QIs were developed by 2009 as surrogate indicators of long-term outcome. During 2003-2009, 2/7 RO-relevant QIs (radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery or after mastectomy) showed considerable increases (from 20 to 85% and 8 to 70%, respectively). Another three, initially high QIs practically reached the required levels.

CONCLUSION

The current data confirm proof-of-concept for the established benchmarking program, which allows participating institutions to be compared and changes in quality of BC care to be tracked over time. Overall, marked QI increases suggest that BC care in Germany improved from 2003-2009. Moreover, it has become possible for the first time to demonstrate improvements in the quality of BC care longitudinally for individual breast centers. In addition, subgroups of relevant QIs can be used to demonstrate the progress achieved, but also the need for further improvement, in specific interdisciplinary specialties.

[Interdisciplinary centres in hospitals? A review of the literature]

The treatment of complex disease patterns demands knowledge, and hence the collaboration of many medical disciplines. Interdisciplinary approaches to treatment are thus superior to multidisciplinary ones in terms of quality and costs. To make use of those benefits, interdisciplinary centres have emerged at many hospitals. Our review of the literature has sought to answer two questions: 1) Is there any evidence for the relationship 'creation of a centre = creation of interdisciplinarity'? 2) How can interdisciplinarity be fostered in centres? Medical and economic publications were identified via key terms in PubMed, Web of Knowledge and WISO. Using their references, further publications were researched. Contributions that complied with predefined criteria were included. For 75 of the 78 publications interdisciplinarity is the means to achieve a centre's objectives in quality and cost. Almost all the positive results achieved in centres, e.g., an increase in number of cases, are attributed to the seemingly established interdisciplinarity, without any evidence to substantiate this interrelation (question 1). The recommendations for creating the requested lively interdisciplinarity are insufficient, since technical arrangements dominate and the importance of social and therewith behavioural aspects is often forgotten--the findings of the respective literature remain unappreciated (question 2). Moreover, pertinent research as well as qualitative longitudinal research designs activating the knowledge of physicians, social scientists and economists should be used to investigate the interdisciplinarity sought for in centres.

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

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Benchmarking the quality of breast cancer care in a nationwide voluntary system: the first five-year results (2003-2007) from Germany as a proof of concept

BACKGROUND

The main study objectives were: to establish a nationwide voluntary collaborative network of breast centres with independent data analysis; to define suitable quality indicators (QIs) for benchmarking the quality of breast cancer (BC) care; to demonstrate existing differences in BC care quality; and to show that BC care quality improved with benchmarking from 2003 to 2007.

METHODS

BC centres participated voluntarily in a scientific benchmarking procedure. A generic XML-based data set was developed and used for data collection. Nine guideline-based quality targets serving as rate-based QIs were initially defined, reviewed annually and modified or expanded accordingly. QI changes over time were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

During 2003-2007, respective increases in participating breast centres and postoperatively confirmed BCs were from 59 to 220 and from 5,994 to 31,656 (> 60% of new BCs/year in Germany). Starting from 9 process QIs, 12 QIs were developed by 2007 as surrogates for long-term outcome. Results for most QIs increased. From 2003 to 2007, the most notable increases seen were for preoperative histological confirmation of diagnosis (58% (in 2003) to 88% (in 2007)), appropriate endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive patients (27 to 93%), appropriate radiotherapy after breast-conserving therapy (20 to 79%) and appropriate radiotherapy after mastectomy (8 to 65%).

CONCLUSION

Nationwide external benchmarking of BC care is feasible and successful. The benchmarking system described allows both comparisons among participating institutions as well as the tracking of changes in average quality of care over time for the network as a whole. Marked QI increases indicate improved quality of BC care.

Variants of parvovirus B19: bioinformatical evaluation of nested PCR assays

Variants of parvovirus B19 are currently grouped into three genotypes: 1 (reference B19 strains), 2 and 3. It has been evidenced that isolate K71 of genotype 2 is more prevalent in skin than the conventional B19 genotype 1. In this study we investigated the detection of parvovirus B19 genotypes by using two nested PCRs and evaluating the suitability of these assays by BLAST search of parvovirus isolates. Subsequently, we analyze the present genotypes in skin biopsies. The two nested PCRs employed in this study allow to amplify 41 isolates as confirmed by bioinformatical validation. The molecular epidemiological characterization of our casistics confirmed the presence of isolate K71 in human skin.