Compliance with clinical guidelines for breast cancer management: A population-based study of quality-of-care indicators in France


Autoři: Anne Cowppli-Bony aff001;  Brigitte Trétarre aff003;  Emilie Marrer aff003;  Gautier Defossez aff003;  Laetitia Daubisse-Marliac aff003;  Gaelle Coureau aff003;  Pamela Minicozzi aff009;  Anne-Sophie Woronoff aff003;  Patricia Delafosse aff003;  Florence Molinié aff001aff003
Působiště autorů: Loire-Atlantique Vendee Cancer Registry, Nantes, France aff001;  SIRIC ILIAD INCa-DGOSInserm_12558, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France aff002;  French Network of Cancer Registries (FRANCIM), Toulouse, France aff003;  Hérault Cancer Registry, Montpellier, France aff004;  Haut-Rhin Cancer Registry, Mulhouse, France aff005;  Poitou-Charentes Cancer Registry, Poitiers, France aff006;  Tarn Cancer Registry, Albi, France aff007;  Gironde Cancer Registry, Bordeaux, France aff008;  Analytical Epidemiology and Health Impact Unit, Department of Preventive and Predictive Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy aff009;  Doubs and Belfort Territory Cancer Registry, Besancon, France aff010;  Isère Cancer Registry, Grenoble, France aff011
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224275

Souhrn

Background

The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA), which aims to standardize the quality of patient care in Europe, has defined quality indicators (QIs) for breast cancer (BC) care to assess compliance to current care standards. These QIs are a useful tool to evaluate care organizations. Only population-based studies are able to assess health system performance in “real-life” situations. This population-based study aimed to describe compliance with several EUSOMA QIs overall and according to patient and organizational factors in France.

Methods

1 560 adult women with primary invasive non-metastatic BC diagnosed in 2012 were randomly selected among all incident BC from 16 French geographical areas covered by cancer registries. Twelve EUSOMA QIs were selected regarding diagnosis, treatment and staging.

Results

The minimum standard as proposed by EUSOMA was met for nine QIs related to pre-operative definitive diagnosis, multidisciplinary discussion and treatment (single surgery, breast conserving surgery (BCS) for small BC (<3cm), radiotherapy after BCS or mastectomy for regional BC (pN≥2a), hormonotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab). Low compliance was observed for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and staging imaging. Adherence to guidelines was usually lower in older patients and in patients with comorbidities. Multidisciplinary discussion was positively related to adherence to guidelines for diagnosis, staging practices (SNLB, imaging) and systemic treatments. Compliance also varied by area of residence and by place of first treatment.

Conclusion

This study provides the first current, comprehensive overview of BC quality care at a population level in France. The guidelines were correctly applied in percentage satisfying the EUSOMA standards for the diagnosis and treatment of BC, although staging practices (SLNB, imaging) can be improved. These results highlight the need for continuous measurement of adherence to guidelines to improve BC care.

Klíčová slova:

Breast cancer – Cancer detection and diagnosis – Cancer treatment – France – Radiation therapy – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Surgical oncology – Treatment guidelines


Zdroje

1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492 30207593

2. Defossez G, Le Guyader-Peyrou S, Uhry Z, Grosclaude P, Colonna M, Dantony E, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in France over the 1990–2018 period: solid tumors. Saint-Maurice: Santé publique France; 2019. https://www.e-cancer.fr/

3. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rutgers E, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26 Suppl 5:v8–30.

4. Biganzoli L, Marotti L, Hart CD, Cataliotti L, Cutuli B, Kühn T, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care: An update from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:59–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.017 28963914

5. Desch CE, McNiff KK, Schneider EC, Schrag D, McClure J, Lepisto E, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Comprehensive Cancer Network Quality Measures. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3631–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.5068 18640941

6. Schnitt SJ. Classification and prognosis of invasive breast cancer: from morphology to molecular taxonomy. Mod Pathol. 2010;23 Suppl 2:S60–64.

7. Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, Biganzoli L, Cserni G, Cutuli B, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(13):2344–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.06.119 20675120

8. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 3558716

9. Minicozzi P, Cirilli C, Federico M, Capocaccia R, Budroni M, Candela P, et al. Differences in stage and treatment of breast cancer across Italy point to inequalities in access to and availability of proper care. Tumori. 2012;98(2):204–9. doi: 10.1700/1088.11930 22677985

10. Sacerdote C, Bordon R, Pitarella S, Mano MP, Baldi I, Casella D, et al. Compliance with clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer treatment: a population-based study of quality-of-care indicators in Italy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:28. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-28 23351327

11. Stordeur S, Vrijens F, Devriese S, Beirens K, Van Eycken E, Vlayen J. Developing and measuring a set of process and outcome indicators for breast cancer. Breast. 2012;21(3):253–60. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.10.003 22056787

12. Caldarella A, Amunni G, Angiolini C, Crocetti E, Di Costanzo F, Di Leo A, et al. Feasibility of evaluating quality cancer care using registry data and electronic health records: a population-based study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(4):411–8. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzs020 22597705

13. Barni S, Venturini M, Molino A, Donadio M, Rizzoli S, Maiello E, et al. Importance of adherence to guidelines in breast cancer clinical practice. The Italian experience (AIOM). Tumori. 2011;97(5):559–63. doi: 10.1700/989.10711 22158483

14. Jacobson JO, Neuss MN, McNiff KK, Kadlubek P, Thacker LR, Song F, et al. Improvement in oncology practice performance through voluntary participation in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(11):1893–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2992 18398155

15. Brucker SY, Schumacher C, Sohn C, Rezai M, Bamberg M, Wallwiener D. 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. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:358. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-358 19055735

16. Dean CT, Jubelirer SJ, Plants BA, Welch CA. Use of radiation after breast conserving surgery (BCS) for DCIS and early invasive breast cancer at Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). A study of compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. W V Med J. 2009;105 Spec No:34–8; quiz 39.

17. Andreano A, Anghinoni E, Autelitano M, Bellini A, Bersani M, Bizzoco S, et al. Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented. J Eval Clin Pract. 2016;22(1):62–70. doi: 10.1111/jep.12436 26290172

18. Laronga C, Gray JE, Siegel EM, Lee J-H, Fulp WJ, Fletcher M, et al. Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: Improvements in Breast Cancer Quality Indicators During a 3-Year Interval. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(4):638–45.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.063 25086813

19. van Hoeve J, de Munck L, Otter R, de Vries J, Siesling S. Quality improvement by implementing an integrated oncological care pathway for breast cancer patients. Breast. 2014;23(4):364–70. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.008 24582455

20. Wallwiener M, Brucker SY, Wallwiener D, Steering Committee. Multidisciplinary breast centres in Germany: a review and update of quality assurance through benchmarking and certification. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(6):1671–83. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-2212-3 22314433

21. Garcia-Etienne CA, Tomatis M, Heil J, Friedrichs K, Kreienberg R, Denk A, et al. Mastectomy trends for early-stage breast cancer: A report from the EUSOMA multi-institutional European database. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(13):1947–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.03.008 22483323

22. van Dam PA, Verheyden G, Sugihara A, Trinh XB, Van Der Mussele H, Wuyts H, et al. A dynamic clinical pathway for the treatment of patients with early breast cancer is a tool for better cancer care: implementation and prospective analysis between 2002–2010. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-70 23497270

23. Kowalski C, Ferencz J, Brucker SY, Kreienberg R, Wesselmann S. Quality of care in breast cancer centers: Results of benchmarking by the German Cancer Society and German Society for Breast Diseases. Breast. 2015;24(2):118–23. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.11.014 25515645

24. van Dam PA, Tomatis M, Marotti L, Heil J, Wilson R, Rosselli Del Turco M, et al. The effect of EUSOMA certification on quality of breast cancer care. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(10):1423–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.06.006 26278019

25. Kiderlen M, Ponti A, Tomatis M, Boelens PG, Bastiaannet E, Wilson R, et al. Variations in compliance to quality indicators by age for 41,871 breast cancer patients across Europe: A European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists database analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(10):1221–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.03.013 25892645

26. van Dam PA, Tomatis M, Marotti L, Heil J, Mansel RE, Rosselli del Turco M, et al. Time trends (2006–2015) of quality indicators in EUSOMA-certified breast centres. Eur J Cancer. 2017;85(Supplement C):15–22.

27. Héquet D, Huchon C, Baffert S, Alran S, Reyal F, Nguyen T, et al. Preoperative clinical pathway of breast cancer patients: determinants of compliance with EUSOMA quality indicators. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(11):1394–1401. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.114 28441385

28. Plavc G, Ratoša I, Žagar T, Zadnik V. Explaining variation in quality of breast cancer care and its impact: a nationwide population-based study from Slovenia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;175(3):585–94. doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05186-z 30847727

29. Hartmann-Johnsen OJ, Kåresen R, Schlichting E, Naume B, Nygård JF. Using clinical cancer registry data for estimation of quality indicators: Results from the Norwegian breast cancer registry. Int J Med Inf. 2019;125:102–9.

30. Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, Lapin B, Liederbach E, Winchester DP, et al. Repeat Surgery After Breast Conservation for the Treatment of Stage 0 to II Breast Carcinoma: A Report From the National Cancer Data Base, 2004–2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(12):1296–305. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.926 25390819

31. Churilla TM, Donnelly PE, Leatherman ER, Adonizio CS, Peters CA. Total Mastectomy or Breast Conservation Therapy? How Radiation Oncologist Accessibility Determines Treatment Choice and Quality: A SEER Data-base Analysis. Breast J. 2015;21(5):473–80. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12449 26133235

32. Daroui P, Gabel M, Khan AJ, Haffty BG, Goyal S. Utilization of breast conserving therapy in stages 0, I, and II breast cancer patients in New Jersey: an American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) analysis. Am J Clin Oncol. 2012;35(2):130–5. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e318209aa57 21325935

33. Patrick JL, Hasse ME, Feinglass J, Khan SA. Trends in adherence to NCCN guidelines for breast conserving therapy in women with Stage I and II breast cancer: Analysis of the 1998–2008 National Cancer Data Base. Surg Oncol. 2017;26(4):359–67. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2017.07.006 29113653

34. Showalter SL, Grover S, Sharma S, Lin L, Czerniecki BJ. Factors Influencing Surgical and Adjuvant Therapy in Stage I Breast Cancer: A SEER 18 Database Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(4):1287–94. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2693-8 23135311

35. Fisher S, Gao H, Yasui Y, Dabbs K, Winget M. Treatment variation in patients diagnosed with early stage breast cancer in Alberta from 2002 to 2010: a population-based study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:35. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0680-z 25609420

36. Gligorov J, Krakowski I, Luporsi E, Namer M. [Recommandations pour la Pratique Clinique : Nice—Saint-Paul-de-Vence 2011 / « Cancers du sein : recommandations et veille bibliographique »]. Oncologie. 2011;13(10–11).

37. Chatterjee A, Serniak N, Czerniecki BJ. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer: A Work in Progress. Cancer J. 2015;21(1):7–10. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000090 25611773

38. Chagpar A, Babiera G, Aguirre J, Caropreso P, Hughes T, American College of Surgeons Communities. Variation in metastatic workup for patients with invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2015;210(6):1147–1154.e2; discussion 1153–1154. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.06.032 26518161

39. Simos D, Catley C, van Walraven C, Arnaout A, Booth CM, McInnes M, et al. Imaging for distant metastases in women with early-stage breast cancer: a population-based cohort study. Can Med Assoc J. 2015;187(12):E387–97.

40. Simos D, Hutton B, Graham ID, Arnaout A, Caudrelier J-M, Mazzarello S, et al. Patient perceptions and expectations regarding imaging for metastatic disease in early stage breast cancer. SpringerPlus. 2014;3:176. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-176 24790821

41. Simos D, Hutton B, Clemons M. Are Physicians Choosing Wisely When Imaging for Distant Metastases in Women With Operable Breast Cancer? J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(1):62–8. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2014.000125 25392522

42. Jagsi R, Abrahamse P, Morrow M, Hawley ST, Griggs JJ, Graff JJ, et al. Patterns and Correlates of Adjuvant Radiotherapy Receipt After Lumpectomy and After Mastectomy for Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(14):2396–403. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.8433 20351324

43. Bouchardy C, Rapiti E, Blagojevic S, Vlastos A-T, Vlastos G. Older female cancer patients: importance, causes, and consequences of undertreatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(14):1858–69. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4208 17488984

44. Mislang AR, Cheung K-L, Hamaker ME, Kunkler I, Markopoulos C, Orecchia R, et al. Controversial issues in the management of older adults with early breast cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2017;8(6):397–402. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2017.05.004 28602710

45. Hansen TM, Zellars RC. Treatment Minimization in Older Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Cancer J. 2017;23(4):231–7. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000272 28731946

46. Ferrigni E, Bergom C, Yin Z, Szabo A, Kong AL. Breast Cancer in Women Aged 80 Years or Older: An Analysis of Treatment Patterns and Disease Outcomes. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19(3):157–64. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.01.007 30819504

47. Kimmick G, Fleming ST, Sabatino SA, Wu X-C, Hwang W, Wilson JF, et al. Comorbidity burden and guideline-concordant care for breast cancer. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(3):482–8. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12687 24512124

48. Rococo E, Mazouni C, Or Z, Mobillion V, Koon Sun Pat M, Bonastre J. Variation in rates of breast cancer surgery: A national analysis based on French Hospital Episode Statistics. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(1):51–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.09.020 26490007


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 10