Quality assessment in prostate cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society

Kowalski, Christoph; Ferencz, Julia; Albers, Peter; Fichtner, Jan; Wiegel, Thomas; Feick, Günter; Wesselmann, Simone

doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1688-z

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Germany, the German Cancer Society has set up a certification program to ensure high standards in cancer care, including the routine provision of POS for everyone in need 9 . More than 100 prostate cancer centers (PCCs) currently hold certification in accordance with the German Cancer Society’s criteria, and they treat almost 50% of new prostate cancer cases in Germany 10 . In order to receive certification, hospitals have to meet multiple requirements: among other things, certified centers are obliged to provide a multidisciplinary team including psychologists or physicians trained in psycho‐oncology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of psycho‐oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cancer patients often suffer from psychological distress. Psycho‐oncological services (POS) have been established in some health care systems in order to address such issues. This study aims to identify patient and center characteristics that elucidate the use of POS by patients in prostate cancer centers (PCCs). Methods Center‐reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted. Results Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients’ age (OR = 0.98; 95%‐CI = 0.96‐0.99; P < .001), number of comorbidities (1‐2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%‐CI = 1.00‐1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high‐risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%‐CI = 1.14‐1.74; P < .001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%‐CI = 0.10‐0.34; P < .001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%‐CI = 0.02‐0.55; P = .009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%‐CI = 0.03‐0.10; P < .001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%‐CI = 0.02‐0.15; P < .001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high‐risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%‐CI = 1.05‐1.62; P = .02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%‐CI = 0.01‐0.65; P = .02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics. Conclusions Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects – for example, less need following radiotherapy – or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of psycho‐oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since 2008, PCCs have been able to apply for certification in accordance with criteria set out by the German Cancer Society [10]. Certification requires centers to document clinical and treatment data that are used for annual audits.…”

Section: Brief Study Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 Städtisches Klinikum Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany. 10 Klinikum Memmingen, Memmingen, Germany. 11 Klinikum Singen, Singen, Germany.…”

Section: Supplementary Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The data in the PCO study and the TNGR are collected in accordance with the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set for localized prostate cancer [9], with a few additional items. All prostate cancer centers (PCCs) that are certified in accordance with the requirements of the DKG [10] were invited to participate. Patient recruitment began July 1, 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A multicenter paper-based and web-based system for collecting patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer: first experiences

Kowalski

Roth

Carl³

et al. 2020

J Patient Rep Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To give an overview of the multicenter Prostate Cancer Outcomes (PCO) study, involving paper-based and web-based collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer in certified centers in Germany. The PCO study is part of the larger Movember-funded TrueNTH Global Registry. The article reports on the study's design and provides a brief progress report after the first 2 years of data collection. Methods: Prostate cancer centers (PCCs) certified according to German Cancer Society requirements were invited to participate in collecting patient-reported information on symptoms and function before and at least once (at 12 months) after treatment. The data were matched with disease and treatment information. This report describes progress in patient inclusion, response rate, and variations between centers relative to online/paper use, and also data quality, including recruitment variations relative to treatment in the first participating PCCs. Results: PCC participation increased over time; 44 centers had transferred data for 3094 patients at the time of this report. Patient recruitment varied widely across centers. Recruitment was highest among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. The completeness of the data was good, except for comorbidity information. Conclusions: The PCO study benefits from a quality improvement system first established over 10 years ago, requiring collection and harmonization of a predefined clinical dataset across centers. Nevertheless, establishing a PROM routine requires substantial effort on the part of providers and constant monitoring in order to achieve highquality data. The findings reported here may be useful for guiding implementation in similar initiatives.

show abstract

“…Following approval of the study by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association of Berlin (Eth-12/16), PCCs certified by the German Cancer Society [15] were invited to participate in the PCO Study (DRKS00010774), an ongoing prospective, population-based cohort study [13]. Starting in July 2016, all PCa patients with a first diagnosis (any T, any N, M0) at one of the participating centers in Germany who were receiving local treatment as well as patients scheduled for active surveillance (AS) and watchful waiting (WW) were eligible for inclusion.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of self-reported functional status (EPIC-26) in prostate cancer patients prior to treatment

Rothschild

Dieng²,

Oesterle³

et al. 2020

World J Urol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The self-reported functional status (sr-FS) of prostate cancer (PCa) patients varies substantially between patients and health-care providers before treatment. Information about this issue is important for evaluating comparisons between health-care providers and to assist in treatment decision-making. There have been few reports on correlates of pretherapeutic sr-FS. The objective of the article, therefore, is to describe clinical and sociodemographic correlates of pretherapeutic sr-FS, based on a subset of the TrueNTH Global Registry, a prospective cohort study. Methods A total of 3094 PCa patients receiving local treatment in 44 PCa centers in Germany were recruited between July 2016 and April 2018. Multilevel regression models were applied to predict five pretherapeutic sr-FS (EPIC-26) scores based on clinical characteristics (standard set suggested by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement), sociodemographic characteristics, and center characteristics. Results Impaired pretherapeutic sr-FS tended to be associated with lower educational level and poorer disease characteristics-except for "urinary incontinence" which was only associated with age. Notably, age was a risk factor ("urinary incontinence," "urinary irritative/obstructive," "sexual") as well as a protective factor ("hormonal") for pretherapeutic sr-FS. Pretherapeutic sr-FS varies little across centers. Conclusions Pretherapeutic sr-FS varies by clinical patient characteristics and age as well as by socioeconomic status. The findings point out the benefit of collecting and considering socioeconomic information in addition to clinical and demographic patient characteristics for treatment decision-making and fair comparisons between health-care providers.

show abstract

Quality assessment in prostate cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

Use of psycho‐oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis

Use of psycho‐oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis

A multicenter paper-based and web-based system for collecting patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer: first experiences

Determinants of self-reported functional status (EPIC-26) in prostate cancer patients prior to treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About