Real-life benchmarking bladder cancer care
A population-based study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8231Keywords:
bladder cancer, surgery, outcomes, quality indicatorsAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Radical cystectomy (RC) is a complex oncological surgical procedure and population studies of routine surgical care have suggested suboptimal results compared to high-volume centers of excellence. A previous Canadian bladder cancer quality-of-care consensus led to adoption of multiple key quality-of-care indicators, with associated benchmarks created using available evidence and expert opinion to inform and measure future performance. Herein, we report real-life benchmark performance for the management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) relative to expert opinion guidance.
METHODS: This is a population-based, retrospective, cohort study that used the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) to identify all incident patients who underwent RC from 2009–2013. Electronic records of treatment from 1573 patients were linked to OCR; pathology records were obtained for all cases and reviewed by a team of trained data abstractors. The primary objective was to describe benchmarks for identified indicators, first as median values obtained across hospitals or providers, as well as a “pared-mean” approach to identify a benchmark population of “top performance,” as defined as the best outcome accomplished for at least 10% of the population.
RESULTS: Overall, performance in Ontario across all indicators fell short of expert opinion-determined benchmarks. Annual surgical volume by each surgeon performing a RC (benchmark >6, percent of institutions meeting benchmark=20%), percent of patients with MIBC referred preoperatively to medical oncology (MO; benchmark>90%, percent of institutions meeting benchmark=2%) and radiation oncology (RO; benchmark>50%, percent of institutions meeting benchmark=0%), time to cystectomy within six weeks of transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (benchmark <6 weeks, percent of institutions meeting benchmark=0%), percent of patients with adequate lymph node dissection (defined as >14 nodes, benchmark>85%, percent of institutions meeting benchmark=0%), percent of patients with positive margins post-RC (benchmark <10%, percent of institutions meeting benchmark=46%), and 90-day mortality (benchmark<5%, percent of institutions meeting benchmark=37%) fell considerably short. Simply evaluating benchmarks across the province as median performance significantly underestimated benchmarks that were possible by top-performing hospitals.
CONCLUSIONS: Performance through most bladder cancer quality-of-care indicators fall short of benchmarks proposed by expert opinion. Different methodologies, such as a pared-mean approach of top performers, may provide more realistic benchmarking.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.