Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Different treatment options exist for localized prostate cancer. Treatments performed in high-volume hospitals are associated with better results. Our objective was to describe time trends in prostate cancer treatments in Portugal and case volume per hospital. We used the national database of diagnosis-related group of the Portuguese Central Administration of the Health System to describe the number of radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT) and external radiotherapy (eRT) treatments performed in all National Health System hospitals. There was a rapid increase in the annual number of RP until 2006 and then a deceleration; BT treatments augmented significantly until 2011. The utilization of eRT also increased, surpassing RP after 2010. From the 46 hospitals performing RP, only eight had a case-volume > 50 treatments/year, and from the nine hospitals performing BT, only four accomplished > 15 treatments/year. In the 11 hospitals with eRT, nine performed > 50/year. Regarding RP, there was negative correlation between the hospital volume and length of stay (r = − 0.303; p = 0.041). In the Portuguese National Health Service there was a steep increase in the number of prostate cancer treatments, and there is an ample margin for concentration of RP and BT treatments, for improvement of the hospitals case volume.
Different treatment options exist for localized prostate cancer. Treatments performed in high-volume hospitals are associated with better results. Our objective was to describe time trends in prostate cancer treatments in Portugal and case volume per hospital. We used the national database of diagnosis-related group of the Portuguese Central Administration of the Health System to describe the number of radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT) and external radiotherapy (eRT) treatments performed in all National Health System hospitals. There was a rapid increase in the annual number of RP until 2006 and then a deceleration; BT treatments augmented significantly until 2011. The utilization of eRT also increased, surpassing RP after 2010. From the 46 hospitals performing RP, only eight had a case-volume > 50 treatments/year, and from the nine hospitals performing BT, only four accomplished > 15 treatments/year. In the 11 hospitals with eRT, nine performed > 50/year. Regarding RP, there was negative correlation between the hospital volume and length of stay (r = − 0.303; p = 0.041). In the Portuguese National Health Service there was a steep increase in the number of prostate cancer treatments, and there is an ample margin for concentration of RP and BT treatments, for improvement of the hospitals case volume.
Objectives: Summarize performance indicators used in the literature to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care (January-June 2020), and to assess changes in the quality of care as assessed via selected indicators. Methods: Scoping review. Indicators and their reported trends were collated following the cancer care pathway. Results: Database searches retrieved 6277 articles, 838 articles met the inclusion criteria, and 135 articles were included after full-text screening, from which 917 indicators were retrieved. Indicators assessing the diagnostic process showed a decreasing trend: from 33 indicators reporting on screening, 30 (91%) signalled a decrease during the pandemic (n=30 indicators, 91%). A reduction was also observed in the number of diagnostic procedures (n=64, 58%) and in the diagnoses (n=130, 89%). The proportion of diagnoses in the emergency setting and waiting times showed an increasing trend (n=8, 89% and n=14, 56%, respectively). Nine indicators (64%) showed stability in cancer stages distribution. A decreasing trend in the proportion of earliest stage cancers was reported by 63% of indicators (n=9), and 70% (n=43) of indicators showed an increasing trend in the proportion of advanced-stage cancers. Indicators reflecting the treatment process signalled a reduction in the number of procedures: 79% (n=82) of indicators concerning surgeries, 72% (n=41) of indicators assessing trends in radiotherapy, and 93% (n=40) of indicators related to systemic therapies. Modifications in cancer treatment were frequently reported: 64% (n=195) of indicators revealed changes in treatment. Ten indicators (83%) signalled a decreasing number of hospital admissions. Conclusion: Health systems struggled to ensure continuity of cancer care. As this pandemic keeps evolving, the trends reported over the first 6 months of 2020 provide an argument to monitor these changes closely. This information needs to be transparent, standardised, and timely, allowing to monitor quality and outcomes of care during crises and inform policy responses.
Background Cancer comprises a high burden on health systems. Performance indicators monitoring cancer outcomes are routinely used in OECD countries. However, the development of process and cancer-pathway based information is essential to guide health care delivery, allowing for better monitoring of changes in the quality of care provided. Assessing the changes in the quality of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic requires a structured approach considering the high volume of publications. This study aims to summarize performance indicators used in the literature to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care (January-June 2020) in OECD countries and to assess changes in the quality of care as reported via selected indicators. Methods Search conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases. Performance indicators and their trends were collated according to the cancer care pathway. Results This study included 135 articles, from which 1013 indicators were retrieved. Indicators assessing the diagnostic process showed a decreasing trend: from 33 indicators reporting on screening, 30 (91%) signalled a decrease during the pandemic (n = 30 indicators, 91%). A reduction was also observed in the number of diagnostic procedures (n = 64, 58%) and diagnoses (n = 130, 89%). The proportion of diagnoses in the emergency setting and waiting times showed increasing trends (n = 8, 89% and n = 14, 56%, respectively). A decreasing trend in the proportion of earliest stage cancers was reported by 63% of indicators (n = 9), and 70% (n = 43) of indicators showed an increasing trend in the proportion of advanced-stage cancers. Indicators reflecting the treatment process signalled a reduction in the number of procedures: 79%(n = 82) of indicators concerning surgeries, 72%(n = 41) of indicators assessing radiotherapy, and 93%(n = 40) of indicators related to systemic therapies. Modifications in cancer treatment were frequently reported: 64%(n = 195) of indicators revealed changes in treatment. Conclusions This study provides a summary of performance indicators used in the literature to assess the cancer care pathway from January 2020 to June 2020 in OECD countries, and the changes in the quality of care signalled by these indicators. The trends reported inform on potential bottlenecks of the cancer care pathway. Monitoring this information closely could contribute to identifying moments for intervention during crises.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.