The importance of quality assurance in surgical oncology

doi:10.1053/ejso.2002.1255

European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO)

Volume 28, Issue 6, September 2002, Pages 571-602

https://doi.org/10.1053/ejso.2002.1255 Get rights and content

Abstract

Aims: The aims were to review the existing methods of quality assurance in surgical oncology and to determine a relationship between surgery-related factors and the variety in outcomes in the treatment of solid cancers.

Methods: The literature was reviewed by searching Medline and Cancerlit databases.

Results:Wide variations were found in virtually all tumour types. Clear evidence was found that an improvement in the quality of the surgical procedure could have major implications for the prognosis and quality of life of cancer patients.

Conclusions: These findings emphasize the need for strict quality control procedures in surgical oncology and might imply a considerable change in cancer treatment strategies, because the routine use of adjuvant therapies could be questioned.

References (263)

P Rougier et al.
The need for a multidisciplinary approach in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a critical review from a medical oncologist and surgeon
Eur J Surg Oncol
(1997)
SM Bentzen et al.
Clinical impact of dosimetry quality assurance programmes assessed by radiobiological modelling of data from the thermoluminescent dosimetry study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer
Eur J Cancer
(2000)
S Belletti et al.
Quality assurance in radiotherapy: the importance of medical physics staffing levels. Recommendations from an ESTRO/EFOMP Joint Task Group
Radiother Oncol
(1996)
J Izewska et al.
The IAEA/WHO TLD postal programme for radiotherapy hospitals
Radiother Oncol
(2000)
T Kehoe et al.
From technical quality assurance of radiotherapy to a comprehensive quality of service management system
Radiother Oncol
(1999)
JH Lanson et al.
In vivo dosimetry during conformal radiotherapy: requirements for and findings of a routine procedure
Radiother Oncol
(1999)
JW Leer et al.
A quality assurance system based on ISO standards: experience in a radiotherapy department
Radiother Oncol
(1995)
D Thwaites et al.
Quality assurance in radiotherapy. European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Advisory Report to the Commission of the European Union for the ‘Europe Against Cancer Programme’
Radiother Oncol
(1995)
JC Horiot et al.
The programmeme of quality assurance of the EORTC Radiotherapy Group. A historical overview
Radiother Oncol
(1993)
G Favalli et al.
Quality control in multicentric clinical trials. An experience of the EORTC Gynecological Cancer Cooperative Group
Eur J Cancer
(2000)

K Vantongelen et al.

EORTC joint ventures in quality control: treatment-related variables and data acquisition in chemotherapy trials

Eur J Cancer

(1991)

WP Steward et al.

Chemotherapy administration and data collection in an EORTC collaborative group – can we trust the results?

Eur J Cancer

(1993)

J Verweij et al.

The use of a systemic therapy checklist improves the quality of data acquisition and recording in multicentre trials. A study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group

Eur J Cancer

(1997)

JK MacFarlane

Nodal metastases in rectal cancer: the role of surgery in outcome

Surg Oncol Clin N Am

(1996)

RJ Heald et al.

Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Lancet

(1986)

K Havenga et al.

Improved survival and local control after total mesorectal excision or D3 lymphadenectomy in the treatment of primary rectal cancer: an international analysis of 1411 patients

Eur J Surg Oncol

(1999)

F Meunier et al.

EORTC scientific strategy meeting 25–26 March 1999

Eur J Cancer

(1999)

JC Horiot et al.

Quality assurance control in the EORTC Cooperative Group of radiotherapy. 1. Assessment of radiotherapy staff and equipment

Radiother Oncol

(1986)

KA Johansson et al.

Quality assurance control in the EORTC Cooperative Group of Radiotherapy. 2. Dosimetric intercomparison

Radiother Oncol

(1986)

KA Johansson et al.

Quality assurance control in the EORTC Cooperative Group of Radiotherapy. 3. Intercomparison in an anatomical phantom

Radiother Oncol

(1987)

GE Hanks

Quality assurance in the EORTC and implications for cooperative studies with the RTOG

Radiother Oncol

(1987)

KA Johansson et al.

Workshop of the EORTC Radiotherapy Group on quality assurance in cooperative trials of radiotherapy: a recommendation for EORTC cooperative groups

Radiother Oncol

(1988)

U Hansson et al.

Quality audit of radiotherapy with EORTC mailed in water TL-dosimetry

Radiother Oncol

(1991)

JC Horiot

Rationale for a quality assurance programme in clinical trials of conservative management of breast carcinoma

Radiother Oncol

(1991)

HP Hamers et al.

Entrance and exit TL-dosimetry in the conservative treatment of breast cancer: a pilot study for the EORTC radiotherapy Cooperative Group

Radiother Oncol

(1991)

G Van Tienhoven et al.

Quality assurance of the EORTC trial 22881/10882: ‘Assessment of the Role of the Booster Dose in Breast Conserving Therapy’: the dummy run

Radiother Oncol

(1991)

H Bartelink et al.

Quality assurance in conservative treatment of early breastcancer: report on a consensus meeting of the EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups and the EUSOMA (European Society of Mastology)

Radiother Oncol

(1991)

U Hansson et al.

Mailed TL dosimetry Programme for machine output check and clinical application in the EORTC Radiotherapy Group

Radiother Oncol

(1993)

J Van Dam et al.

EORTC Radiotherapy Group quality assurance: mechanical checks and beam alignments of megavoltage equipment

Radiother Oncol

(1993)

M Bolla et al.

EORTC guidelines for writing protocols for clinical trials of radiotherapy

Radiother Oncol

(1995)

A Dusserre et al.

Quality assurance of the EORTC radiotherapy trial 22863 for prostatic cancer: the dummy run

Radiother Oncol

(1995)

J Bernier et al.

Profile of radiotherapy departments contributing to the cooperative group of Radiotherapy of the EORTC

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

(1996)

JF Valley et al.

Quality assurance of the EORTC radiotherapy trial 22931 for head and neck carcinomas: the dummy run

Radiother Oncol

(1998)

P Hermanek et al.

The German experience: the surgeon as a prognostic factor in colon and rectal cancer surgery

Surg Onco Clin N Am

(2000)

IJ Adam et al.

Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer [see Comments]

Lancet

(1994)

JK MacFarlane et al.

Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer [see Comments]

Lancet

(1993)

P Quirke et al.

Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision

Lancet

(1986)

SJ Cawthorn et al.

Extent of mesorectal spread and involvement of lateral resection margin as prognostic factors after surgery for rectal cancer [see Comments]

Lancet

(1990)

E Kapiteijn et al.

Local recurrence in patients with rectal cancer diagnosed between 1988 and 1992: a population-based study in the West Netherlands

Eur J Surg Oncol

(1998)

P Hermanek et al.

The importance of volume in colorectal cancer surgery

Eur J Surg Oncol

(1996)

M Simunovic et al.

Hospital procedure volume and teaching status do not influence treatment and outcome measures of rectal cancer surgery in a large general population

J Gastrointest Surg

(2000)

C Stiller

Survival of patients with cancer: those included in clinical trials do better (Letter)

Br Med J

(1989)

C Stiller

Centralised treatment, entry to trials and survival

Br J Cancer

(1994)

D Thwaites

Quality assurance into the next century (Editorial)

Radiother Oncol

(2000)

WE Enker et al.

Total mesorectal excision in the operative treatment of carcinoma of the rectum

J Am Coll Surg

(1995)

RJ Heald et al.

Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978–1997

Arch Surg

(1998)

A Lehander Martling et al.

Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the county of Stockholm

Lancet

(2000)

M Overgaard et al.

Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 82b Trial [see Comments]

N Eng J Med

(1997)

G Van Tienhoven et al.

Quality assurance of the EORTC trial 22881/10882: boost versus no boost in breast conserving therapy. An overview

Strahlenther Onkol

(1997)

H Schraffordt Koops

Surgical quality control in an international randomised clinical trial

Eur J Surg Oncol

(1992)

Cited by (35)

Surgical quality assurance in head and neck cancer trials: an EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Group position paper based on the EORTC 1420 ‘Best of’ and 24954 ‘larynx preservation’ study
2018, European Journal of Cancer
Citation Excerpt :
QA aims to supervise each clinical and technical component of the whole process to arrive at the final and best possible outcome. Various programs have been developed and typically demonstrated efficacy in terms of outcome improvement with respect to morbidity and mortality, but also with respect to costs [2,3]. There are several initiatives that aim to deliver comprehensive QA.
Quality improvement of care for patients with head and neck cancer remains a constant objective for the multidisciplinary team of physicians managing these patients. The purpose of quality assurance (QA) for head and neck surgical oncology and surgical trials however differs. While QA for the general head and neck patient aims to improve global outcome through structural changes of health-care systems, QA for surgical trials pursues the goal to help providing meaningful results from a clinical trial through the definition of structure, process and outcome measures within the trial. Establishing a QA program for surgical trials is challenging largely due to the variation in the execution of surgical techniques. Within this article, we describe the surgical QA program, which was developed for the phase III European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1420 study, a trial assessing swallowing function after transoral surgery compared with radiation therapy. We propose based on our experience to further develop surgical QA for surgical clinical trials by introducing two separate components, one adaptable and one non-adaptable. The adaptable is tailored to the scientific question and specific procedure; the non-adaptable consists of minimal structural requirements of the clinical unit to participate in surgical trials at EORTC as well as guidelines and incentives for protocol adherence based on our experience in EORTC 24954. Finally, we strongly believe that surgical QA designed for clinical trials may serve as a basis for the development of QA surgical guidelines in clinical practice.
Impact of central surgical review in a study of malignant germ cell tumors
2015, Journal of Pediatric Surgery
Verification of surgical staging has received little attention in clinical oncology trials. Central surgical review was undertaken during a study of malignant pediatric germ cell tumors.
Children's Oncology Group study AGCT0132 included central surgical review during the study. Completeness of submitted data and confirmation of assigned stage were assessed. Review responses were: assigned status confirmed, assignment withheld pending review of additional information requested, or institutional assignment of stage disputed with explanation given. Changes in stage assignment were at the discretion of the enrolling institution.
A total of 206 patients underwent central review. Failure to submit required data elements or need for clarification was noted in 40%. Disagreement with stage assignment occurred in 10% with 17/21 discordant patients reassigned to stage recommended by central review. Four ovarian tumor patients not meeting review criteria for Stage I remained in that stratum by institutional decision. Two-year event free survival in Stage I ovarian patients was 25% for discordant patients compared to 57% for those meeting Stage I criteria by central review.
Central review of stage assignment improved complete data collection and assignment of correct tumor stage at study entry, and allowed for prompt initiation of chemotherapy in patients determined not to have Stage I disease.
Evaluating population-based breast cancer surgical practice in real time with a web-based synoptic operative reporting system
2014, American Journal of Surgery
A Web-based synoptic operative reporting system (WebSMR) incorporates implicit guidelines and real-time feedback of a surgeon's practice compared with provincial data. This study compares rates of total mastectomy (TM) between the overall provincial and WebSMR patients and examines decision-making factors in WebSMR patients.
Patients treated for invasive breast cancer (2007 to 2011) were identified from WebSMR and the Alberta Cancer Registry. Reports include surgery type and reasons for TM.
Among 5,787 patients in WebSMR (2007 to 2011), TM rate decreased from 48% to 42% (P < .001). In 2011, the provincial cancer registry recorded a 56% TM rate compared to 42% in WebSMR patients. Patient preference accounted for 36% in the latter group.
In WebSMR patients, TM rates were lower than the overall provincial rate and decreased significantly during the study period. Reasons are unclear, but guidelines and real-time feedback likely plays a role.
Discussion
2014, American Journal of Surgery
A Web-based synoptic operative reporting system (WebSMR) incorporates implicit guidelines and real-time feedback of a surgeon's practice compared with provincial data. This study compares rates of total mastectomy (TM) between the overall provincial and WebSMR patients and examines decision-making factors in WebSMR patients.
Patients treated for invasive breast cancer (2007 to 2011) were identified from WebSMR and the Alberta Cancer Registry. Reports include surgery type and reasons for TM.
Among 5,787 patients in WebSMR (2007 to 2011), TM rate decreased from 48% to 42% (P < .001). In 2011, the provincial cancer registry recorded a 56% TM rate compared to 42% in WebSMR patients. Patient preference accounted for 36% in the latter group.
In WebSMR patients, TM rates were lower than the overall provincial rate and decreased significantly during the study period. Reasons are unclear, but guidelines and real-time feedback likely plays a role.
Clinical Relevance of Conversion Rate and its Evaluation in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
2013, Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
To estimate the current conversion rate in laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH); to estimate the influence of patient, procedure, and performer characteristics on conversion; and to hypothesize the extent to which conversion rate can act as a means of evaluation in LH.
Prospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
The study included 79 gynecologists representing 42 hospitals throughout the Netherlands. This reflects 75% of all gynecologists performing LH in the Netherlands, and 68% of all hospitals.
Data from 1534 LH procedures were collected between 2008 and 2010.
All participants in the nationwide LapTop registration study recorded each consecutive LH they performed during 1 year.
Conversion rate and odds ratios (OR) of risk factors for conversion were calculated. Conversions were described as reactive or strategic. The literature reported a conversion rate for LH of 0% to 19% (mean, 3.5%). In our cohort, 70 LH procedures (4.6%) were converted. Using a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we estimated independent risk factors for conversion. Body mass index (BMI) (p = .002), uterus weight (p < .001), type of LH (p = .004), and age (p = .02) had a significant influence on conversion. The risk of conversion was increased at BMI >35 (OR, 6.53; p < .001), age >65 years (OR, 6.97; p = .007), and uterus weight 200 to 500 g (OR, 4.05; p < .001) and especially >500 g (OR, 30.90; p < .001). A variation that was not explained by the covariates included in our model was identified and referred to as the “surgical skills factor” (average OR, 2.79; p = .001).
Use of estimated risk factors (BMI, age, uterus weight, and surgical skills) provides better insight into the risk of conversion. Conversion rate can be used as a means of evaluation to ensure better outcomes of LH in future patients.
EORTC-GCG process quality indicators for ovarian cancer surgery
2009, European Journal of Cancer
Citation Excerpt :
Outcomes are defined as states of health or events that follow care and that may be affected by health care.5,7 The need for strict quality control procedures in cancer care and more specifically in surgical oncology has been repeatedly emphasised, as much in daily practice as in clinical trials.5,8,9 Indeed, structural factors such as being operated on by a gynaecological oncologist and in a specialised hospital have been associated with a better survival for ovarian cancer patients.10
Surgery is the mainstay of staging and treatment of ovarian cancer. Optimal quality of ovarian cancer surgery implies complete staging and removal of all macroscopic tumour with minimal harm to the patient in order to ensure best patient outcome. However, variation in the quality of ovarian cancer surgery is apparent. In order to assess and improve the quality of care, quality indicators can be used.
To identify candidate quality indicators, a literature search was performed using relevant MESH terms. These were assessed for validity, feasibility and measurability.
Five quality indicators for staging of presumed early-stage ovarian cancer and six for primary debulking surgery for advanced disease are proposed.
The defined quality indicators can be used to monitor and improve the quality of surgery for ovarian cancer.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^f1: Correspondence to: P. Therasse, Director EORTC Data Centre, Avenue E Mounier 83/11, 1200 Brussels, Belgium. Tel.: +3227741643; Fax: +3227726197; E-mail:[email protected]

View full text

Review ArticleThe importance of quality assurance in surgical oncology

Abstract

Eur J Surg Oncol

Eur J Cancer

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Eur J Cancer

Eur J Cancer

Eur J Cancer

Eur J Cancer

Surg Oncol Clin N Am

Lancet

Eur J Surg Oncol

Eur J Cancer

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Radiother Oncol

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

Radiother Oncol

Surg Onco Clin N Am

Lancet

Lancet

Lancet

Lancet

Eur J Surg Oncol

Eur J Surg Oncol

J Gastrointest Surg

Survival of patients with cancer: those included in clinical trials do better (Letter)

Br Med J

Centralised treatment, entry to trials and survival

Br J Cancer

Quality assurance into the next century (Editorial)

Radiother Oncol

Total mesorectal excision in the operative treatment of carcinoma of the rectum

J Am Coll Surg

Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978–1997

Arch Surg

Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the county of Stockholm

Lancet

Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 82b Trial [see Comments]

N Eng J Med

Quality assurance of the EORTC trial 22881/10882: boost versus no boost in breast conserving therapy. An overview

Strahlenther Onkol

Surgical quality control in an international randomised clinical trial

Eur J Surg Oncol

Review Article
The importance of quality assurance in surgical oncology