Literature DB >> 34435297

Quality Standards for Surgery of Colorectal Peritoneal Metastasis After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

Alfonso García-Fadrique1, Rafael Estevan Estevan2, Luis Sabater Ortí3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The standardization of surgical outcomes throughout surgical procedures is mandatory. Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC) should provide proficient oncological and surgical outcomes. STUDY
DESIGN: The aim of this study was to identify clinically relevant quality indicators and their quality standard, and to determine their acceptable quality limit. A systematic review on cytoreductive results from 2000 to 2018 was performed focusing on clinical guidelines, consensus conferences, and publications. After the selection of quality indicators, a systematic review of indexed references was performed in order to calculate the quality standard for each indicator. STUDY SELECTION: Unicentric/multicentric series, comparative studies, and clinical trials. Studies were to include outcomes after cytoreduction of colorectal origin and series with more than 50 patients. Quality indicators with at least 10 series were mandatory and objective measurements were also mandatory for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Quality indicators selected were 1- to 5-year survival, overall disease-free survival, 1- to 5-year disease-free survival, complete surgical resection, duration of surgery, length of stay, overall morbimortality, major morbidity, re-intervention, postoperative hemorrhage, intestinal fistula, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, postoperative medical complications, overall recurrence, and failure to rescue.
RESULTS: The most relevant quality indicators and critical quality limits were overall disease-free survival and 5-year overall disease-free survival (14 months and <10 months, and 14% and <4%, respectively), completeness of surgical resection (89% and <80%, respectively), overall mortality (3% and >8%, respectively), overall morbidity (47% and >63%, respectively), failure to rescue (12% and <30%, respectively), reintervention (13 and <22%, respectively), anastomotic leakage (6% and <13%, respectively), and overall recurrence (60% and <74%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess quality standards in CRS + HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases. The current data are of particular relevance for future studies to control the variability of this surgery.
© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34435297     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10642-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  125 in total

1.  Developing and measuring a set of process and outcome indicators for breast cancer.

Authors:  Sabine Stordeur; France Vrijens; Stephan Devriese; Koen Beirens; Elizabeth Van Eycken; Joan Vlayen
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 4.380

2.  Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance.

Authors:  David J Spiegelhalter
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966.

Authors:  Avedis Donabedian
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 4.  Control charts, Cusum techniques and funnel plots. A review of methods for monitoring performance in healthcare.

Authors:  Luc Noyez
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2009-06-09

Review 5.  Outcome quality standards in pancreatic oncologic surgery.

Authors:  Luis Sabater; Alvaro García-Granero; Javier Escrig-Sos; Maria Del Carmen Gómez-Mateo; Juan Sastre; Antonio Ferrández; Joaquín Ortega
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Guidelines on the use of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal surface malignancy arising from colorectal or appendiceal neoplasms.

Authors:  P Dubé; L Sideris; C Law; L Mack; E Haase; C Giacomantonio; A Govindarajan; M K Krzyzanowska; P Major; Y McConnell; W Temple; R Younan; J A McCart
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 7.  Quality of care indicators for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Johan L Dikken; Jurriën Stiekema; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Marcel Verheij; Annemieke Cats; Michel W J M Wouters; Johanna W van Sandick
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Quality indicators for testicular cancer: a population-based study.

Authors:  Joan Vlayen; France Vrijens; Stephan Devriese; Koen Beirens; Elizabeth Van Eycken; Sabine Stordeur
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2011-11-19       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 9.  Quality-of-care indicators for oesophageal cancer surgery: A review.

Authors:  E F W Courrech Staal; M W J M Wouters; H Boot; R A E M Tollenaar; J W van Sandick
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 4.424

Review 10.  Comparison of control charts for monitoring clinical performance using binary data.

Authors:  Jenny Neuburger; Kate Walker; Chris Sherlaw-Johnson; Jan van der Meulen; David A Cromwell
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 7.035

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.