An economic evaluation of the optimal workload in treating surgical patients in a breast unit

Do hospital type or caseload make a difference in chemotherapy treatment patterns for early breast cancer? Results from 104 German institutions, 2008-2017

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, chemotherapy has been used more selectively in early breast cancer (EBC) due to better risk stratification. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has evolved to the primary treatment option. The type and size of hospitals is known to have a substantial influence on the kinds of treatment they provide, and therefore on patient outcomes (e.g. rates for pathological complete response, pCR), but it is not yet known how this has affected delivery of chemotherapy for EBC in Germany.

METHODS

This study analyzed chemotherapy use and pCR rates after NACT for EBC patients treated at 104 German institutions 2008-2017. Institutions were separated into associated hospital type (university hospital; teaching hospital; community hospital) and annual caseload (≤100; 101-250; >250 cases/year).

RESULTS

Overall, 124,084 patients were included, of whom 11.6% were treated at university hospitals, 63.1% at teaching hospitals, and 25.3% at community hospitals. In total, 46,274 (37.3%) received chemotherapy, of whom 44,765 had information available about systemic treatment and surgery. From 2008 to 2017, chemotherapy use declined from 48.3% to 36.4% for university hospitals, from 40.7% to 30.3% for teaching hospitals, and from 42.4% to 33.7% for community hospitals. Furthermore, the proportion of NACT increased the most in university hospitals (from 32.0% to 68.1%); whereas, the rate of pCR (defined as ypT0 ypN0) increased irrespective of institutional type. Analyses regarding annual caseload did not show any differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this large, nationwide cohort reflect a more selective use of chemotherapy in Germany, irrespective of institutional type or case load.

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 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.

Diffusion of good practices of care and decline of the association with case volume: the example of breast conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

Several previous studies conducted on cancer registry data and hospital discharge records (HDR) have found an association between hospital volume and the recourse to breast conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. The aim of the current study is to depict concurrent time trends in the recourse to BCS and its association with hospital volume.

METHODS

Admissions of breast cancer patients for BCS or mastectomy in the period 2000-2004 were identified from the discharge database of the Veneto Region (Italy). The role of procedural volume (low < 50, medium 50-100, high > 100 breast cancer surgeries/year), and of individual risk factors obtainable from HDR was assessed through a hierarchical log-binomial regression.

RESULTS

Overall, the recourse to BCS was higher in medium (risk ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.18) and high-volume (1.09, 1.03-1.14) compared to low-volume hospitals. The proportion of patients treated in low-volume hospitals dropped from 22% to 12%, with a concurrent increase in the activity of medium-volume providers. The increase over time in breast conservation (globally from 56% to 67%) was steeper in the categories of low- and medium-volume hospitals with respect to high caseload.

CONCLUSION

The growth in the recourse to BCS was accompanied by a decline of the association with hospital volume; larger centers probably acted as early adopters of breast conservation strategies that subsequently spread to smaller providers.

Cost-effectiveness of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: is tailored and dose-escalated chemotherapy with growth factor support (GFS) more costly and less effective than marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy - results from a randomized study

Based on randomized studies bone-marrow supported (BMS) high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) is not superior to conventional CT as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these treatments we examined the data of Finnish patients in the SBG9401 trial 1. Patients were randomized to receive either dose-escalated (de FEC) (group A, n =59) or FEC and HDCT+BMS (group B, n =70). They received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) + tamoxifen. All direct health care costs of first line treatment at the oncology units were considered as well as productivity costs within the first 3 years of follow-up. Effectiveness was measured by the number of survival days during 5 years of follow-up. The mean direct health care costs were significantly higher in group B (25829 euro in group A vs. 36605 euro in group B, p <0.001), mainly due to a higher number of hospital days. Half of the costs in group A was due to the use of filgrastim (15335 euro in A and 2969 euro in B, p <0.001). The costs of RT were only 5% of total costs. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the number of survival days, but sensitivity analysis based on bootstrapping suggested that treatment A would be a less costly and more effective alternative in a great majority of cases.

[EUSOMA requirements for breast cancer units in Spain]

INTRODUCTION

The optimal treatment of breast cancer consists of a multidisciplinary approach in specialized units, benefitting patients and leading to more rational resource use. Based on these premises, the European Society of Mastology (EUSOMA) drew up recommendations designed to provide all European countries with high-quality multidisciplinary teams.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We present and analyze the results obtained from a survey of breast cancer units in 241 Spanish hospitals performed by the Breast Diseases Group of the Spanish Association of Surgeons.

RESULTS

Breast disease was treated in general surgery departments in 131 hospitals and Spanish surgeons showed strong interest in continuing training (41.2% had a postgraduate degree in mastology). Multidisciplinary discussions at weekly intervals took place in 95 hospitals (73.6%) hospitals for planning a diagnostic and therapeutic course of action specific for each patient. Written protocols for diagnosis and treatment were used in 119 departments (90.8%) and quality control measures were applied in 83 (63.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

We stress the need for mandatory requirements in Spain for breast cancer units, preferably adapted to the EUSOMA criteria, which are accepted by the relevant committee of the European Parliament. Through its Breast Diseases Group, the Spanish Association of Surgeons should be involved in accreditation standards for breast surgeons and should promote adequate specialization programs.

Analysis of surgical and diagnostic quality at a specialist breast unit

The quality of a specialist breast unit was analysed prospectively, comparing data from 1998, with data from 2003. The analysis is based on 5451 new referrals and 632 major breast cancer operations. The period was characterized by an increasing number of surgical specialists and improvements in diagnostic resources. There was statistically significant improvement in the following parameters: frequency of excision biopsies fell from 17.3% to 10.4%; preoperative cancer diagnosis without excision biopsy rose from 67.4% to 95.1%; percentage of women receiving breast conserving surgery rose from 24.4% to 44.7%. Cases where less than 10 lymph nodes were removed at axillary dissection fell from 5.8% to 0.5%. Severe postoperative bleeding fell from 4.1% to 0.8%, severe wound infection from 4.7% to 1.1% and severe skin necrosis from 3.7% to 0.2%. It is concluded that centralization of surgical and diagnostic expertise at a high volume institution contributes positively to the quality of care.

Surgical caseload and outcomes for women with invasive breast cancer treated in Western Australia

We have assessed the outcomes for all women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in Western Australia during 1989, 1994 and 1999, and compared the results for surgeons who treat 20 or more cases per year with those of surgeons who treat less. Women treated by high caseload surgeons were more likely to retain their breast (53.3% vs. 36.7%, p<0.001), have adjuvant radiotherapy (50.0% vs. 30.6%, p<0.001), and be alive after 4 years (1989, 86% vs. 82%; 1994, 89% vs. 84%; 1999, 90% vs. 79%, HR 0.71, p=0.03). Adjusting for age and year of diagnosis, women were not more likely to be treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (29.2% vs. 20.9%, p=0.28). In 1989 35% of women were treated by high caseload surgeons. By 1999 this had risen to 82%. The results confirm that women treated by high caseload surgeons have better outcomes.