Advertisement

Establishing metastatic prostate cancer quality indicators using a modified Delphi approach

Published:January 06, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.11.018

      ABSTRACT

      Background

      There is variation in the care provided to men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). There has been no previous set of quality indicators (QIs) regarding the management of men with mPCa. The objective of this study is to develop a set of international mPCa-specific QIs, which will enable global benchmarking of quality of care.

      Materials and methods

      Potential QIs were identified through a literature review. Fourteen multidisciplinary mPCa experts (representing medical and radiation oncology, nursing, psychology, palliative care and urology) from eight countries participated in a modified Delphi process, which consisted of two online surveys, one face-to-face meeting and two teleconferences. Panelists were asked to rate each indicator's importance and feasibility on a Likert scale from 1 to 9. Indicators that received median importance and median feasibility scores ≥ 7.5, and a disagreement index <1 for both measures, on the final round of voting were included in the final set.

      Results

      There was consensus on 23 QIs out of total of 662. Four regarding “general management”, 12 “therapies”, three “complications” and four “patient-reported quality of life”. One of the inherent limitations of the Delphi process is that there is a small expert panel involved.

      Conclusion

      The quality indicator set defined by our process for management of men with mPCa will enable greater understanding of the standard and variation of care globally and will promote consistency of good practice. Future directions will include retrospective evaluation for compliance with these indicators, as well as prospective monitoring.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Donabedian A.
        The quality of care. How can it be assessed?.
        JAMA. 1988; 260: 1743-1748
        • Sampurno F
        • Zheng J
        • Di Stefano L
        • et al.
        Quality indicators for global benchmarking of localized prostate cancer management.
        J Urol. 2018; 200: 319-326
        • Ortelli L
        • Spitale A
        • Mazzucchelli L
        • Bordoni A.
        Quality indicators of clinical cancer care for prostate cancer: a population-based study in southern Switzerland.
        BMC Cancer. 2018; 18: 733
      1. Danish Prostate Cancer (DAPROCA) data. Annual Report 2014 Available at: https://www.sundhed.dk/content/cms/86/15686_daproca_%C3%A5rsrapport-2014_kommenteret_20150521final.pdf.

      2. Information Services Division. Prostate Cancer Quality Performance Indicators. NHS Scotland; 2016.

      3. National Prostate Cancer Registry (NPCR) of Sweden. Quality indicators - Urology - Multidisciplinary conference/reception (M1). 2019.

        • Sampurno F
        • Earnest A
        • Kumari PB
        • et al.
        Quality of care achievements of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria.
        Med J Aust. 2016; 204: 319
        • Loeb S
        • Folkvaljon Y
        • Curnyn C
        • Robinson D
        • Bratt O
        • Stattin P
        Uptake of Active Surveillance for Very-Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in Sweden.
        JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3: 1393-1398
        • Filson CP
        • Boer B
        • Curry J
        • et al.
        Improvement in clinical TNM staging documentation within a prostate cancer quality improvement collaborative.
        Urology. 2014; 83: 781-786
        • Morgans AK
        • van Bommel AC
        • Stowell C
        • et al.
        Development of a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes for advanced prostate cancer: an international effort for a unified approach.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 891-898
      4. Movember Foundation. IRONMAN: An International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer 2019 Available at: https://ironmanregistry.org.

        • Fitch K
        • Bernstein S.J.
        • Anguilar M.D.
        • et al.
        The RAND/ULCA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual.
        RAND, Santa Monica2001
        • Rao K
        • Manya K
        • Azad A
        • et al.
        Uro-oncology multidisciplinary meetings at an Australian tertiary referral centre–impact on clinical decision-making and implications for patient inclusion.
        BJU Int. 2014; 114 (Suppl): 50-54
        • Sciarra A
        • Gentile V
        • Panebianco V.
        Multidisciplinary management of Prostate Cancer: how and why.
        Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2013; 1: 12-17
        • Gillessen S
        • Attard G
        • Beer TM
        • et al.
        Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: the report of the advanced prostate cancer consensus conference APCCC 2017.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 178-211
        • Page R
        • Blanchard E.
        Opioids and cancer pain: patients' needs and access challenges.
        J Oncol Pract. 2019; 15: 229-231
      5. Alberta Health Services. Advanced/Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Alberta Health Services; 2018.

      6. British Uro-onology Group (BUG) British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Section of Oncology. Multi-disciplinary Team (MDT) Guidance for Managing Prostate Cancer. 2013.

      7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer NCCN Evidence Blocks. 2018 October 25, 2018.

        • Crnalic S
        • Hildingsson C
        • Bergh A
        • Widmark A
        • Svensson O
        • Lofvenberg R.
        Early diagnosis and treatment is crucial for neurological recovery after surgery for metastatic spinal cord compression in prostate cancer.
        Acta Oncol. 2013; 52: 809-815
        • Ziegler LE
        • Craigs CL
        • West RM
        • et al.
        Is palliative care support associated with better quality end-of-life care indicators for patients with advanced cancer? A retrospective cohort study.
        BMJ Open. 2018; 8e018284
        • Porter ME.
        What is value in health care?.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 2477-2481
        • Giri VN
        • Knudsen KE
        • Kelly WK
        • et al.
        Role of Genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer risk: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2017.
        J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36: 414-424
      8. Australian Cancer Network Management of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Working Party. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Locally Advanced and Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia and Australian Cancer Network; 2010.

        • Saad F
        • Chi KN
        • Finelli A
        • et al.
        The 2015 CUA-CUOG Guidelines for the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
        Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9: 90-96