PURPOSE: Perioperative instillation of intravesical chemotherapy after bladder tumor resection is supported by level I evidence showing a 30% decrease in tumor recurrence. However, studies of administrative data sets show poor use in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the use of perioperative intravesical chemotherapy in a multipractice quality improvement collaborative. Cases were categorized as ideal for intravesical chemotherapy (1 or 2 papillary tumors, cTa/cT1 and completely resected) and nonideal. The reasons for not administering intravesical chemotherapy in ideal cases were classified as appropriate or modifiable. Before and after comparative feedback and educational interventions we calculated judicious use of intravesical chemotherapy (nonuse in nonideal cases plus use in ideal cases plus appropriate nonuse in ideal cases) and quality improvement potential (use in nonideal cases plus nonuse in ideal cases attributable to modifiable factors). RESULTS: We accrued a total of 2,794 cases at the 5 sites in 22 months. The rate of use in ideal cases was 38% before and 34.8% after intervention (p=0.36), while use in nonideal cases decreased from 15% to 12% (p=0.08). Overall, intravesical chemotherapy was used judiciously in 83.0% to 85.7% of cases, while the remaining 14.3% to 17.0% represented quality improvement potential. CONCLUSIONS: Judicious use of perioperative intravesical chemotherapy is relatively high in routine practice. Most instances of nonuse represent appropriate clinical judgment. Utilization did not change after quality improvement interventions, suggesting that there may a ceiling effect that makes it difficult to improve care that is high quality at baseline. Moreover, decreasing unnecessary use of an intervention may be easier than encouraging appropriate use of potentially toxic therapy.
PURPOSE: Perioperative instillation of intravesical chemotherapy after bladder tumor resection is supported by level I evidence showing a 30% decrease in tumor recurrence. However, studies of administrative data sets show poor use in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the use of perioperative intravesical chemotherapy in a multipractice quality improvement collaborative. Cases were categorized as ideal for intravesical chemotherapy (1 or 2 papillary tumors, cTa/cT1 and completely resected) and nonideal. The reasons for not administering intravesical chemotherapy in ideal cases were classified as appropriate or modifiable. Before and after comparative feedback and educational interventions we calculated judicious use of intravesical chemotherapy (nonuse in nonideal cases plus use in ideal cases plus appropriate nonuse in ideal cases) and quality improvement potential (use in nonideal cases plus nonuse in ideal cases attributable to modifiable factors). RESULTS: We accrued a total of 2,794 cases at the 5 sites in 22 months. The rate of use in ideal cases was 38% before and 34.8% after intervention (p=0.36), while use in nonideal cases decreased from 15% to 12% (p=0.08). Overall, intravesical chemotherapy was used judiciously in 83.0% to 85.7% of cases, while the remaining 14.3% to 17.0% represented quality improvement potential. CONCLUSIONS: Judicious use of perioperative intravesical chemotherapy is relatively high in routine practice. Most instances of nonuse represent appropriate clinical judgment. Utilization did not change after quality improvement interventions, suggesting that there may a ceiling effect that makes it difficult to improve care that is high quality at baseline. Moreover, decreasing unnecessary use of an intervention may be easier than encouraging appropriate use of potentially toxic therapy.
Authors: Edward M Messing; Catherine M Tangen; Seth P Lerner; Deepak M Sahasrabudhe; Theresa M Koppie; David P Wood; Philip C Mack; Robert S Svatek; Christopher P Evans; Khaled S Hafez; Daniel J Culkin; Timothy C Brand; Lawrence I Karsh; Jeffrey M Holzbeierlein; Shandra S Wilson; Guan Wu; Melissa Plets; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Ian M Thompson Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey C Bassett; JoAnn Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Matthew Resnick; Chaochen You; Shenghua Ni; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hung-Jui Tan; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Angela B Smith; Stephanie B Wheeler; William R Carpenter; Matthew E Nielsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Clint Cary; Yan Tong; Susan Linsell; Khurshid Ghani; David C Miller; Michael Weiner; Michael O Koch; Susan M Perkins; Gregory Zimet Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Devon K Check; David S Aaronson; Matthew E Nielsen; Valerie S Lee; Isaac J Ergas; Janise M Roh; Lawrence H Kushi; Li Tang; Marilyn L Kwan Journal: Urology Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Charles C Peyton; Juan Chipollini; Mounsif Azizi; Ashish M Kamat; Scott M Gilbert; Phillippe E Spiess Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Michael A Moriarty; Matthew A Uhlman; Megan T Bing; Michael A O'Donnell; James A Brown; Chad R Tracy; Sundeep Deorah; Kenneth G Nepple; Amit Gupta Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Francesco Mistretta; Nicolò Maria Buffi; Giovanni Lughezzani; Giuliana Lista; Alessandro Larcher; Nicola Fossati; Alberto Abrate; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Francesco Montorsi; Giorgio Guazzoni; Massimo Lazzeri Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 3.411