• Something wrong with this record ?

Quality Indicators for Bladder Cancer Services: A Collaborative Review

JJ. Leow, JWF. Catto, JA. Efstathiou, JL. Gore, AA. Hussein, SF. Shariat, AB. Smith, AZ. Weizer, M. Wirth, JA. Witjes, QD. Trinh

. 2020 ; 78 (1) : 43-59. [pub] 20190926

Language English Country Switzerland

Document type Journal Article, Systematic Review

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21020385

CONTEXT: There is a lack of accepted consensus on what should constitute appropriate quality-of-care indicators for bladder cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal management of bladder cancer and propose quality indicators (QIs). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was performed to identify literature on current optimal management and potential quality indicators for both non-muscle-invasive (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive (MIBC) bladder cancer. A panel of experts was convened to select a recommended list of QIs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: For NMIBC, preoperative QIs include tobacco cessation counselling and appropriate imaging before initial transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Intraoperative QIs include administration of antibiotics, proper safe conduct of TURBT using a checklist, and performing restaging TURBT with biopsy of the prostatic urethra in appropriate cases. Postoperative QIs include appropriate receipt of perioperative adjuvant therapy, risk-stratified surveillance, and appropriate decision to change therapy when indicated (eg, bacillus Calmette-Guerin [BCG] unresponsive). For MIBC, preoperative QIs include multidisciplinary care, selection for candidates for continent urinary diversion, receipt of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, time to commencing radical treatment, consideration of trimodal therapy as a bladder-sparing alternative in select patients, preoperative counselling with stoma marking, surgical volume of radical cystectomy, and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Intraoperative QIs include adequacy of lymphadenectomy, blood loss, and operative time. Postoperative QIs include prospective standardised monitoring of morbidity and mortality, negative surgical margins for pT2 disease, appropriate surveillance after primary treatment, and adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in appropriate cases. Participation in clinical trials was highlighted as an important component indicating high quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a set of QIs for both NMIBC and MIBC based on established clinical guidelines and the available literature. Although there is currently a lack of level 1 evidence for the benefit of implementing these QIs, we believe that the measurement of these QIs could aid in the improvement and benchmarking of optimal care for bladder cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: After a systematic review of existing guidelines and literature, a panel of experts has recommended a set of quality indicators that can help providers and patients measure and strive towards optimal outcomes for bladder cancer care.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21020385
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220720101145.0
007      
ta
008      
210728s2020 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.001 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)31563501
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Leow, Jeffrey J $u Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore; Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
245    10
$a Quality Indicators for Bladder Cancer Services: A Collaborative Review / $c JJ. Leow, JWF. Catto, JA. Efstathiou, JL. Gore, AA. Hussein, SF. Shariat, AB. Smith, AZ. Weizer, M. Wirth, JA. Witjes, QD. Trinh
520    9_
$a CONTEXT: There is a lack of accepted consensus on what should constitute appropriate quality-of-care indicators for bladder cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal management of bladder cancer and propose quality indicators (QIs). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was performed to identify literature on current optimal management and potential quality indicators for both non-muscle-invasive (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive (MIBC) bladder cancer. A panel of experts was convened to select a recommended list of QIs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: For NMIBC, preoperative QIs include tobacco cessation counselling and appropriate imaging before initial transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Intraoperative QIs include administration of antibiotics, proper safe conduct of TURBT using a checklist, and performing restaging TURBT with biopsy of the prostatic urethra in appropriate cases. Postoperative QIs include appropriate receipt of perioperative adjuvant therapy, risk-stratified surveillance, and appropriate decision to change therapy when indicated (eg, bacillus Calmette-Guerin [BCG] unresponsive). For MIBC, preoperative QIs include multidisciplinary care, selection for candidates for continent urinary diversion, receipt of neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, time to commencing radical treatment, consideration of trimodal therapy as a bladder-sparing alternative in select patients, preoperative counselling with stoma marking, surgical volume of radical cystectomy, and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Intraoperative QIs include adequacy of lymphadenectomy, blood loss, and operative time. Postoperative QIs include prospective standardised monitoring of morbidity and mortality, negative surgical margins for pT2 disease, appropriate surveillance after primary treatment, and adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in appropriate cases. Participation in clinical trials was highlighted as an important component indicating high quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a set of QIs for both NMIBC and MIBC based on established clinical guidelines and the available literature. Although there is currently a lack of level 1 evidence for the benefit of implementing these QIs, we believe that the measurement of these QIs could aid in the improvement and benchmarking of optimal care for bladder cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: After a systematic review of existing guidelines and literature, a panel of experts has recommended a set of quality indicators that can help providers and patients measure and strive towards optimal outcomes for bladder cancer care.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a invazivní růst nádoru $7 D009361
650    _2
$a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma $7 D017410
650    12
$a ukazatele kvality zdravotní péče $7 D019984
650    _2
$a nádory močového měchýře $x patologie $x terapie $7 D001749
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Catto, James W F $u Academic Urology Unit, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
700    1_
$a Efstathiou, Jason A $u Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
700    1_
$a Gore, John L $u Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
700    1_
$a Hussein, Ahmed A $u Department of Urology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
700    1_
$a Smith, Angela B $u Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
700    1_
$a Weizer, Alon Z $u Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
700    1_
$a Wirth, Manfred, $u Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany $d 1949- $7 xx0012316
700    1_
$a Witjes, J Alfred $u Department of Urology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
700    1_
$a Trinh, Quoc-Dien $u Division of Urological Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: qtrinh@bwh.harvard.edu
773    0_
$w MED00001669 $t European urology $x 1873-7560 $g Roč. 78, č. 1 (2020), s. 43-59
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31563501 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210728 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220720101140 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1691040 $s 1140831
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 78 $c 1 $d 43-59 $e 20190926 $i 1873-7560 $m European urology $n Eur Urol $x MED00001669
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210728

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options