OBJECTIVE: To test the association between hospital type and performance of candidate quality measures for treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using a large national tumour registry. Proposed quality measures include receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, timely treatment, adequate lymph node dissection, and continent urinary diversion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients with stage ≥II urothelial carcinoma treated with radical cystectomy (RC) from 2003 to 2010 were identified. Hospitals were grouped by type and annual RC volume: community, comprehensive low volume (CLV), comprehensive high volume (CHV), academic low volume (ALV), and academic high volume (AHV) groups. Logistic regression models were used to test the association between hospital group and performance of quality measures, adjusting for year, demographic, and clinical/pathological characteristics; generalised estimating equations were fitted to the models to adjust for clustering at the hospital level. RESULTS: In all, 23 279 patients underwent RC at community (12.4%), comprehensive (CLV 38%, CHV 5%), and academic (ALV 17%, AHV 28%) hospitals. While only 0.8% (175) of patients met all four quality criteria, 61% of patients treated at AHV hospitals met two or more quality metric indicators compared with ALV (45%), CHV (44%), CLV (38%), and community (37%) hospitals (P < 0.001). After adjustment, patients were more likely to receive two or more quality measures when treated at AHV (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, confidence interval [CI] 2.0-2.9), ALV (OR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.6), and CHV (OR 1.3, CI 1.03-1.7) hospitals compared with community hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing RC at AHV hospitals were more likely to meet quality criteria. However, performance remains low across hospital types, highlighting the opportunity to improve quality of care for MIBC.
OBJECTIVE: To test the association between hospital type and performance of candidate quality measures for treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using a large national tumour registry. Proposed quality measures include receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, timely treatment, adequate lymph node dissection, and continent urinary diversion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients with stage ≥II urothelial carcinoma treated with radical cystectomy (RC) from 2003 to 2010 were identified. Hospitals were grouped by type and annual RC volume: community, comprehensive low volume (CLV), comprehensive high volume (CHV), academic low volume (ALV), and academic high volume (AHV) groups. Logistic regression models were used to test the association between hospital group and performance of quality measures, adjusting for year, demographic, and clinical/pathological characteristics; generalised estimating equations were fitted to the models to adjust for clustering at the hospital level. RESULTS: In all, 23 279 patients underwent RC at community (12.4%), comprehensive (CLV 38%, CHV 5%), and academic (ALV 17%, AHV 28%) hospitals. While only 0.8% (175) of patients met all four quality criteria, 61% of patients treated at AHV hospitals met two or more quality metric indicators compared with ALV (45%), CHV (44%), CLV (38%), and community (37%) hospitals (P < 0.001). After adjustment, patients were more likely to receive two or more quality measures when treated at AHV (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, confidence interval [CI] 2.0-2.9), ALV (OR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.6), and CHV (OR 1.3, CI 1.03-1.7) hospitals compared with community hospitals. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing RC at AHV hospitals were more likely to meet quality criteria. However, performance remains low across hospital types, highlighting the opportunity to improve quality of care for MIBC.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard Sullivan; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Karol Sikora; John Zalcberg; Neal J Meropol; Eitan Amir; David Khayat; Peter Boyle; Philippe Autier; Ian F Tannock; Tito Fojo; Jim Siderov; Steve Williamson; Silvia Camporesi; J Gordon McVie; Arnie D Purushotham; Peter Naredi; Alexander Eggermont; Murray F Brennan; Michael L Steinberg; Mark De Ridder; Susan A McCloskey; Dirk Verellen; Terence Roberts; Guy Storme; Rodney J Hicks; Peter J Ell; Bradford R Hirsch; David P Carbone; Kevin A Schulman; Paul Catchpole; David Taylor; Jan Geissler; Nancy G Brinker; David Meltzer; David Kerr; Matti Aapro Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Andrea C Fang; Ardalan E Ahmad; Jared M Whitson; Linda D Ferrell; Peter R Carroll; Badrinath R Konety Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Catharina A Goossens-Laan; Gea A Gooiker; Willem van Gijn; Piet N Post; J L H Ruud Bosch; Paul J M Kil; Michel W J M Wouters Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Izak Faiena; Amirali Salmasi; Neil Mendhiratta; Andrew T Lenis; Aydin Pooli; Alexandra Drakaki; Kiran Gollapudi; Jeremy Blumberg; Allan J Pantuck; Karim Chamie Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Elizabeth Handorf; Anthony T Corcoran; Yu-Ning Wong; Reza Mehrazin; Justin E Bekelman; Daniel Canter; Alexander Kutikov; David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo; Marc C Smaldone Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Samuel L Washington; John Neuhaus; Maxwell V Meng; Sima P Porten Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 4.254