Quality of care indicators for prostate cancer: Progress toward consensus

Quality Indicators in the Clinical Specialty of Urology: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

In health care, monitoring of quality indicators (QIs) in general urology remains underdeveloped in comparison to other clinical specialties.

OBJECTIVE

To identify, synthesise, and appraise QIs that monitor in-hospital care for urology patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review included peer-reviewed articles identified via Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, Google Scholar, and grey literature from 2000 to February 19, 2021. The review was carried out under the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool for quality assessment.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 5111 articles and 62 government agencies were screened for QI sets. There were a total of 57 QI sets included for analysis. Most QIs focused on uro-oncology, with prostate, bladder, and testicular cancers the most represented. The most common QIs were surgical QIs in uro-oncology (positive surgical margin, surgical volume), whereas in non-oncology the QIs most frequently reported were for treatment and diagnosis. Out of 61 articles, only four scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. Aside from QIs developed in uro-oncology, general urological QIs are underdeveloped and of poor methodological quality and most lack testing for both content validity and reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for the development of methodologically robust QIs in the clinical specialty of general urology for patients to enable standardised quality of care monitoring and to improve patient outcomes.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We investigated a range of quality indicators (QIs) that provide health care professionals with feedback on the quality of their care for patients with general urological diseases. We found that aside from urological cancers, there is a lack of QIs for general urology. Hence, there is an urgent need for the development of robust and disease-specific QIs in general urology.

The Role of Provider Characteristics in the Selection of Surgery or Radiation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Association With Quality of Care Indicators

INTRODUCTION

We sought to identify the role of provider and facility characteristics in receipt of radical prostatectomy (RP) or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and adherence to quality of care measures in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects included 2861 and 1630 men treated with RP or EBRT, respectively, for localized PCa whose records were reabstracted as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Breast and Prostate Patterns of Care Study. We utilized multivariable generalized estimating equation regression analysis to assess patient, clinical, and provider (year of graduation, urologist density) and facility (group vs. solo, academic/teaching status, for-profit status, distance to treatment facility) characteristics that predicted use of RP versus EBRT as well as quality of care outcomes.

RESULTS

Multivariable analysis revealed that group (vs. solo) practice was associated with a decreased risk of RP (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.91). Among RP patients with low-risk disease, receipt of a bone scan that was not recommended was significantly predicted by race and insurance status. Surgical quality of care measures were associated with physician's year of graduation and receiving care at a teaching facility.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to demographic factors, we found that provider and facility characteristics were associated with treatment choice and specific quality of care measures. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether quality of care indicators are related to PCa outcomes.

Automating the Determination of Prostate Cancer Risk Strata From Electronic Medical Records

Purpose

Risk stratification underlies system-wide efforts to promote the delivery of appropriate prostate cancer care. Although the elements of risk stratum are available in the electronic medical record, manual data collection is resource intensive. Therefore, we investigated the feasibility and accuracy of an automated data extraction method using natural language processing (NLP) to determine prostate cancer risk stratum.

Methods

Manually collected clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values from our prospective prostatectomy database were used to categorize patients as low, intermediate, or high risk by D'Amico risk classification. NLP algorithms were developed to automate the extraction of the same data points from the electronic medical record, and risk strata were recalculated. The ability of NLP to identify elements sufficient to calculate risk (recall) was calculated, and the accuracy of NLP was compared with that of manually collected data using the weighted Cohen's κ statistic.

Results

Of the 2,352 patients with available data who underwent prostatectomy from 2010 to 2014, NLP identified sufficient elements to calculate risk for 1,833 (recall, 78%). NLP had a 91% raw agreement with manual risk stratification (κ = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.93). The κ statistics for PSA, Gleason score, and clinical stage extraction by NLP were 0.86, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively; 91.9% of extracted PSA values were within ± 1.0 ng/mL of the manually collected PSA levels.

Conclusion

NLP can achieve more than 90% accuracy on D'Amico risk stratification of localized prostate cancer, with adequate recall. This figure is comparable to other NLP tasks and illustrates the known trade off between recall and accuracy. Automating the collection of risk characteristics could be used to power real-time decision support tools and scale up quality measurement in cancer care.

[Prostate cancer: Quality assessment of clinical management in the Midi-Pyrenean region in 2011]

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the quality of the clinical management of prostate cancer in the Midi-Pyrenean region in 2011.

METHODS

The study population was randomly selected among new cases of prostate cancer presented in Multidisciplinary Team Meeting (MTM) in 2011. The indicators defined with the professionals have evaluated the quality of the diagnostic care, when treatment started and at the time of the MTM.

RESULTS

Six hundred and thirty-three new patients were included (median age at diagnosis=69years, min: 48; max: 93). In diagnostic period, 92% of patients had a prostate biopsy. Performing a pelvic MRI, an abdomino-pelvic CT and bone scintigraphy concerned respectively 53%, 55% and 61% of intermediate or high-risk patients. The Gleason score, surgical margins and pathological stage were included in over 98% patient records treated by radical prostatectomy. A PSA assay in 3months after prostatectomy was found in 59% of surgical patients. The MTM was performed before treatment to 83% of patients. About three-quarters of surgical patients with stage pT≥3 or pN1 or with no healthy margins were discussed in MTM after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Most of the studied indicators reach a high level. However, the lower level of realization of complementary examinations may question about their real place, accessibility and traceability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer: a critical appraisal

PURPOSE

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly being used by leading organizations to promote high quality evidence-based patient care. However, the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines developed by different organizations varies considerably. We assessed published clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of localized prostate cancer to evaluate the rigor, applicability and transparency of their recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for English based clinical practice guidelines on treatment of localized prostate cancer from leading organizations in the 15-year period from 1999 to 2014. Clinical practice guidelines limited to early detection, screening, staging and/or diagnosis of prostate cancer were excluded from analysis. Four independent reviewers used the validated AGREE II instrument to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines in 6 domains, including 1) scope and purpose, 2) stakeholder involvement, 3) rigor of development, 4) clarity of presentation, 5) applicability and 6) editorial independence.

RESULTS

A total of 13 clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria. Overall the highest median scores were in the AGREE II domains of clarity of presentation, editorial independence, and scope and purpose. The lowest median score was for applicability (28.1%). Although the median score of editorial independence was high (85.4%), variability was also substantial (IQR 12.5-100). NICE and AUA clinical practice guidelines consistently scored well in most domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practice guidelines from different organizations on treatment of localized prostate cancer are of variable quality and fall short of current standards in certain areas, especially in applicability and stakeholder involvement. Improvements in these key domains can enhance the impact and implementation of clinical practice guidelines.

Quality of cancer survivorship care in the military health system (TRICARE)

PURPOSE

Following the acute phase of treatment, national guidelines recommend cancer survivors have routine contact with health care providers and undergo basic ancillary testing while avoiding high-cost imaging (HCI). We conducted this study to determine how frequently breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors received recommended follow-up care and HCI tests during the survivorship period.

METHODS

Using administrative data from TRICARE beneficiaries, we identified a cohort of patients who were treated for breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer between October 2005 and March 2007. These patients were then followed through September 2010. During the 3 years after initial treatment, we determined how frequently survivors received all minimum recommended survivorship care as defined by national guidelines and underwent HCI tests and if these outcomes varied by geographic region.

RESULTS

Overall, 3148 patients underwent treatment for breast (n = 1630), prostate (n = 1173), or colorectal (n = 345) cancer. Sixty-five percent received all minimum recommended care over 3 years (breast = 74.1%, prostate = 65.3%, colorectal = 25.5%). During the 3-year period, 74.1% of breast cancer survivors received a mammogram each year, whereas 69.1% of colorectal cancer survivors had at least 1 colonoscopy. Sixty-four percent had at least 1 HCI study during the 3-year period (positron emission tomography = 10.9%, computer tomography = 48.8%, magnetic resonance imaging = 36.6%) at a cost of $3.5 million. Substantial state-level variation was noted for both outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Some cancer survivors do not receive recommended care following initial treatment while frequently undergoing HCI. The existing geographic variation in quality and imaging utilization suggests that improvements to cancer survivorship care are possible.

A criterion-based audit of the technical quality of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the technical quality of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in Canada.

METHODS

This was a multi-institution, retrospective study of a random sample of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer in Canada. Patterns of care were determined by abstracting details of the patients' management from original records. The quality of patient's technical care was measured against a previously published, comprehensive suite of quality indicators.

RESULTS

32 of the 37 RT centres participated. The total study population of 810 patients included 25% low-risk, 44% intermediate-risk, and 28% high-risk cases. 649 received external beam RT (EBRT) only, for whom compliance with 12 indicators of the quality of pre-treatment assessment ranged from 56% (sexual function documented) to 96% (staging bone scan obtained in high-risk patients). Compliance with treatment-related indicators ranged from 78% (dose to prostate ≥74 Gy in intermediate risk patients not receiving hormone therapy) to 100% (3DCRT or IMRT plan). Compliance varied among centres; no centre demonstrated 100% compliance on all indicators and every centre was 100% compliant on at least some indicators. The number of assessment-related indicators (n=13) with which a given centre was 100% compliant ranged from 4 to 11 (median 7) and the number of the treatment-specific indicators (n=8) with which a given centre was 100% compliant ranged from 6 to 8 (median 8). ADT therapy was utilised in most high-risk cases (191, 92.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

While patterns of prostate cancer care in Canada vary somewhat, compliance on the majority of quality indicators is very high. However, all centres showed room for improvement on several indicators and few individual patients received care that met target benchmarks on all quality measures. This variation is particularly important for indicators such as delivered dose where impact on disease outcome is known to exist, and suggests that quality improvement programmes have the potential to further improve quality of care.

Quality of care indicators and their related outcomes: a population-based study in prostate cancer patients treated with radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We describe variations across the regional cancer centres in Ontario, Canada for five prostate cancer radiotherapy (RT) quality indicators: incomplete pre-treatment assessment, follow-up care, leg immobilization, bladder filling, and portal film target localization. Along with cancer centre volume, we examined each indicator's association with relevant outcomes: long-term cause-specific survival, urinary incontinence, and gastrointestinal and genitourinary late morbidities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 924 prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1998 who received RT within 9 months of diagnosis. Data sources included treating charts and registry and administrative data. The associations between indicators and outcomes were analysed using regression techniques to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Practice patterns varied across the regional cancer centres for all indicators (p<0.0001). Incomplete pre-treatment assessment was associated with worse cause-specific survival although this result was not significant when adjusted for confounding (adjusted RR=1.78, 95% CI=0.79-3.98). Treatment without leg immobilization (adjusted RR=1.72, 95% CI=1.16-2.56) and with an empty bladder (adjusted RR=1.98, 95% CI=1.08-3.63) was associated with genitourinary late morbidities. Treatment without leg immobilization was also associated with urinary incontinence (adjusted RR=2.18, 95% CI=1.23-3.87).

CONCLUSIONS

We documented wide variations in practice patterns. We demonstrated that measures of quality of care can be shown to be associated with clinically relevant outcomes in a population-based sample of prostate cancer patients.

Quality assessment in oncology

The movement to improve healthcare quality has led to a need for carefully designed quality indicators that accurately reflect the quality of care. Many different measures have been proposed and continue to be developed by governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. However, given the inherent differences in the delivery of care among medical specialties, the same indicators will not be valid across all of them. Specifically, oncology is a field in which it can be difficult to develop quality indicators, because the effectiveness of an oncologic intervention is often not immediately apparent, and the multidisciplinary nature of the field necessarily involves many different specialties. Existing and emerging comparative effectiveness data are helping to guide evidence-based practice, and the increasing availability of these data provides the opportunity to identify key structure and process measures that predict for quality outcomes. The increasing emphasis on quality and efficiency will continue to compel the medical profession to identify appropriate quality measures to facilitate quality improvement efforts and to guide accreditation, credentialing, and reimbursement. Given the wide-reaching implications of quality metrics, it is essential that they be developed and implemented with scientific rigor. The aims of the present report were to review the current state of quality assessment in oncology, identify existing indicators with the best evidence to support their implementation, and propose a framework for identifying and refining measures most indicative of true quality in oncologic care.

Regional collaboration to improve radiographic staging practices among men with early stage prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We describe findings from a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative project focused on improving the use of radiographic staging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From May 2009 through September 2010 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative surgeons collected uniform data for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. During this period we implemented 3 phases of data collection. Unlike the baseline phase, the second and third rounds were preceded by collaborative quality improvement interventions, including comparative performance feedback, and review and dissemination of clinical guidelines. We evaluated the use of bone scans and computerized tomography across prostate cancer risk strata, Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practice locations, and before and after quality improvement interventions.

RESULTS

We collected data for 858 men with prostate cancer. Based on the D'Amico classification 44%, 39% and 17% of the men had low, intermediate and high risk cancer, respectively. Overall 25% and 22% of patients underwent staging with a bone scan or computerized tomography, respectively, ordered by a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative urologist. Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices differed significantly in their baseline use of bone scans and computerized tomography for men with low and intermediate risk cancer (p<0.01). Compared with baseline practice patterns (31% bone scans, 28% computerized tomography), urologists in Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices ordered fewer bone and computerized tomography scans in post-intervention phases 2 (23%, 21%) and 3 (16%, 13%) of data collection (p<0.01), including a significant reduction in the use of these studies in patients with low and intermediate risk cancer (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Following collaborative feedback on baseline use and review of clinical guidelines, urologists in Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices dramatically reduced variations in practice patterns and improved adherence with recommended staging practices.

The crossroads of evidence-based medicine and health policy: implications for urology

As healthcare spending in the United States continues to rise at an unsustainable rate, recent policy decisions introduced at the national level will rely on precepts of evidence-based medicine to promote the determination, dissemination, and delivery of "best practices" or quality care while simultaneously reducing cost. We discuss the influence of evidence-based medicine on policy and, in turn, the impact of policy on the developing clinical evidence base with an eye to the potential effects of these relationships on the practice and provision of urologic care.

Overuse of imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Routine imaging for staging low risk prostate cancer is not recommended according to current guidelines. We characterized patterns of care and factors associated with imaging overuse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used SEER-Medicare linked data to identify men diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer from 2004 to 2005, and determined if imaging (computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, bone scan, abdominal ultrasound) was obtained following prostate cancer diagnosis before treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 6,444 men identified with low risk disease 2,330 (36.2%) underwent imaging studies. Of these men 1,512 (23.5%), 1,710 (26.5%) and 118 (1.8%) underwent cross-sectional imaging (computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging), bone scan and abdominal ultrasound, respectively. Radiation therapy vs surgery was associated with greater odds of imaging (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.68-2.35, p <0.01), while active surveillance vs surgery was associated with lower odds of imaging (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34-0.56, p <0.01). Associated with increased odds of imaging was median household income greater than $60,000 (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.11-1.79, p <0.01), and men from New Jersey vs San Francisco (OR 3.11, 95% CI 2.24-4.33, p <0.01) experienced greater odds of imaging. Men living in areas with greater than 90% vs less than 75% high school education experienced lower odds of imaging (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.6-0.95, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

There is widespread overuse and significant geographic variation in the use of imaging to stage low risk prostate cancer. Moreover treatment associated variation in imaging was noted with the greatest vs lowest imaging use observed for radiation therapy vs active surveillance.

Variation in quality of care among older men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes and their association with process-of-care measures for elderly Medicare recipients with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare databases for the period from 1995 to 2003 were used to identify African-American men, non-Hispanic white men, and Hispanic men with localized prostate cancer, and data were obtained for the 1-year period before the diagnosis of prostate cancer and up to 8 years postdiagnosis. The short-term outcomes of interest were complications, emergency room visits, readmissions, and mortality; the long-term outcomes of interest were prostate cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality; and process-of-care measures of interest were treatment and time to treatment. Cox proportional hazards regression, logistic regression, and Poisson regression were used to study the racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes and their association with process-of-care measures.

RESULTS

Compared with non-Hispanic white patients, African-American patients (Hazard ration [HR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CE], 1.19-1.86) and Hispanic patients (HR=1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84) had greater hazard of long term prostate specific mortality. African-American patients also had greater odds of emergency room visits (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7) and greater all-cause mortality (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.3-1.5) compared with white patients. The time to treatment was longer for African-American patients and was indicative of a greater hazard of all-cause, long-term mortality. Hispanic patients who underwent surgery or received radiation had a greater hazard of long-term prostate-specific mortality compared with white patients who received hormone therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes were associated with process-of-care measures (the type and time to treatment). The current results indicated that there is an opportunity to reduce these disparities by addressing these process-of-care measures.

Racial variation in the pattern and quality of care for prostate cancer in the USA: mind the gap

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on racial variation in the pattern of care (PoC) and quality of care (QoC) for prostate cancer, as there are known racial disparities in the incidence and outcomes of prostate cancer. While there are some biological explanations for these differences, they do not completely explain the variation. Differences in the appropriateness and QoC delivered to men of different racial groups may contribute to disparities in outcome.

METHODS

We searched the USA National Library of Medicine PubMed system for articles pertaining to quality indicators in prostate cancer and racial disparities in QoC for prostate cancer.

RESULTS

While standards for appropriate treatment are not clearly defined, racial variation in the PoC has been reported in several studies, suggesting that African-American men may receive less aggressive treatment. There are validated QoC indicators in prostate cancer, and researchers have begun to evaluate racial variation in adherence to these quality indicators. Further quality comparisons, particularly in structural measures, may need to be performed to fully evaluate differences in QoC.

CONCLUSIONS

There is mounting evidence for racial variation in the PoC and QoC for prostate cancer, which may contribute to observed differences in outcome. While some of the sources of racial variation in quality and outcome have been identified through the development of evidence-based guidelines and validated quality indicators, opportunities exist to identify, study and attempt to resolve other components of the quality gap.

The importance of quality indicators: a call to action

Collapse