Kim-Lin Chiew1,2, Shanley Chong2,3, Kirsten J Duggan4, Nasreen Kaadan4, Shalini K Vinod1,2,5. 1. Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, NSW, Australia. 2. South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia. 3. Healthy People & Places Unit, South Western Sydney Local Health District, NSW, Australia. 4. Sydney and South West Sydney Clinical Cancer Registry, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia. 5. University of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in cervical cancer and the correlation with clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using patient information from a population-based cancer registry (2005-2011, n = 208). Compliance to 10 widely accepted CPGs was assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess sociodemographic factors associated with CPG adherence. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to assess the relationship between CPG adherence and 5-year survival. RESULTS: Adherence to individual CPGs ranged from 47% to 100%. Compliance to all applicable CPGs was seen in 54% (n = 72) of patients, 62% of stage I and II patients and 22% of stage III and IV patients. Poorest adherence was seen with those with locally advanced disease receiving chemoradiotherapy. Patients who lived within 5 km of the treatment facility were more likely to be compliant. No difference was found for either age, country of birth or socioeconomic status group. Five-year survival was greater for stage I and II patients who received guideline adherent care (93.7% vs 69.7%, P = 0.002), and they had a significant lower risk of death on multivariate analysis (HR = 0.22, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference for those with stage III or IV disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, CPG adherence is variable between treatment modalities and only half complied to all applicable CPGs. There was better adherence in those with early-stage disease and this was associated with improved patient outcomes. CPG adherence may be a useful surrogate for quality of care.
AIM: To investigate adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in cervical cancer and the correlation with clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using patient information from a population-based cancer registry (2005-2011, n = 208). Compliance to 10 widely accepted CPGs was assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess sociodemographic factors associated with CPG adherence. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to assess the relationship between CPG adherence and 5-year survival. RESULTS: Adherence to individual CPGs ranged from 47% to 100%. Compliance to all applicable CPGs was seen in 54% (n = 72) of patients, 62% of stage I and II patients and 22% of stage III and IV patients. Poorest adherence was seen with those with locally advanced disease receiving chemoradiotherapy. Patients who lived within 5 km of the treatment facility were more likely to be compliant. No difference was found for either age, country of birth or socioeconomic status group. Five-year survival was greater for stage I and II patients who received guideline adherent care (93.7% vs 69.7%, P = 0.002), and they had a significant lower risk of death on multivariate analysis (HR = 0.22, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference for those with stage III or IV disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, CPG adherence is variable between treatment modalities and only half complied to all applicable CPGs. There was better adherence in those with early-stage disease and this was associated with improved patient outcomes. CPG adherence may be a useful surrogate for quality of care.
Authors: Mirko Griesel; Tobias P Seraphin; Nikolaus C S Mezger; Lucia Hämmerl; Jana Feuchtner; Walburga Yvonne Joko-Fru; Mazvita Sengayi-Muchengeti; Biying Liu; Samukeliso Vuma; Anne Korir; Gladys C Chesumbai; Sarah Nambooze; Cesaltina F Lorenzoni; Marie-Thérèse Akele-Akpo; Amalado Ayemou; Cheick B Traoré; Tigeneh Wondemagegnehu; Andreas Wienke; Christoph Thomssen; Donald M Parkin; Ahmedin Jemal; Eva J Kantelhardt Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-03-10
Authors: E Aranda; E Polo; C Camps; A Carrato; E Díaz-Rubio; V Guillem; R López; A Antón Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Mia Bierbaum; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Gaston Arnolda; Geoffrey P Delaney; Winston Liauw; Richard Kefford; Yvonne Tran; Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig; Frances Rapport Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692