Jeffrey J Leow1, James W F Catto2, Jason A Efstathiou3, John L Gore4, Ahmed A Hussein5, Shahrokh F Shariat6, Angela B Smith7, Alon Z Weizer8, Manfred Wirth9, J Alfred Witjes10, Quoc-Dien Trinh11. 1. 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. 2. Academic Urology Unit, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 6. 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. 7. Department of Urology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, UNC-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 8. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 9. Department of Urology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 11. 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.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Wei Shen Tan; Jeffrey J Leow; Maya Marchese; Ashwin Sridhar; Giles Hellawell; Matthew Mossanen; Jeremy Y C Teoh; Sarah Fowler; Alexandra J Colquhoun; Jo Cresswell; James W F Catto; Quoc-Dien Trinh; John D Kelly Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-09-20