Using the American College of Surgeons Cancer Registry to Drive Quality

Edge, Stephen B.; McKellar, Daniel P.; Stewart, Andrew K.

doi:10.1200/jop.2013.000955

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The surveys were sent to a sample of cancer centers accredited by the Commission on Cancer (CoC); this designation indicates that the centers met 34 published standards . These centers represent approximately 30% of all US hospitals and provide care to approximately 70% of patients with cancer . Cancer centers demonstrating scientific excellence in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment are separately recognized by the NCI.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of palliative care services at US cancer centers: An updated national survey

Hui

Rosa

Chen

et al. 2020

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: This study examined the changes in outpatient palliative care services at US cancer centers over the past decade. METHODS: Between April and August 2018, all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers were surveyed. Two surveys used previously in a 2009 national study were sent to each institution: a 22-question cancer center executive survey regarding palliative care infrastructure and attitudes toward palliative care and an 82question palliative care program leader survey regarding detailed palliative care structures and processes. Survey findings from 2018 were compared with 2009 data from 101 cancer center executives and 96 palliative care program leaders. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 69% (140 of 203) for the cancer center executive survey and 75% (123 of 164) for the palliative care program leader survey. Among NCI-designated cancer centers, a significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics was observed between 2009 and 2018 (59% vs 95%; odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-48.2; P < .001) with no significant changes in inpatient consultation teams (92% vs 90%; P = .71), palliative care units (PCUs; 26% vs 40%; P = .17), or institution-operated hospices (31% vs 18%; P = .14). Among non-NCI-designated cancer centers, there was no significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics (22% vs 40%; P = .07), inpatient consultation teams (56% vs 68%; P = .27), PCUs (20% vs 18%; P = .76), or institution-operated hospices (42% vs 23%; P = .05). The median interval from outpatient palliative care referral to death increased significantly, particularly for NCI-designated cancer centers (90 vs 180 days; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant growth in outpatient palliative care clinics, there remain opportunities for improvement in the structures and processes of palliative care programs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of palliative care services at US cancer centers: An updated national survey

Hui

Rosa

Chen

et al. 2020

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A retrospective review of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2017 was performed to identify patients ≥ 18 years old with non-metastatic ampullary adenocarcinoma. The NCDB is a combined effort of the Commission on Cancer (CoC) of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society and represents >70% of cancer diagnoses in the United States from over 1500 healthcare facilities [11]. The CoC's NCDB and the hospitals participating in the CoC NCDB are the source of the deidentified data, and they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions presented in this study.…”

Section: Patient Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Patients with Ampullary Carcinoma Who Do Not Undergo Surgery

Facer

Cloyd

Manne

et al. 2023

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgical resection is the standard of care for ampullary adenocarcinoma (AC). Many patients are ineligible due to comorbidities/advanced disease. Evidence for the optimal non-operative management of localized AC is lacking. We hypothesize that patients treated with chemotherapy (CT) and definitive radiation (DRT) will have superior survival (OS) compared to those treated with CT alone. We performed a retrospective review of the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2017 to identify patients with non-metastatic AC and no surgical intervention. Patients were categorized as having received no treatment, palliative radiotherapy (PRT) alone, CT alone, CT + PRT, DRT alone, or CT + DRT. We utilized Kaplan–Meier analysis to determine OS and the log-rank test to compare survival curves. Among 2176 patients, treatment groups were: No treatment (71.2%), PRT alone (1.9%), CT alone (13.1%), CT + PRT (1.6%), DRT alone (2.4%), and CT + DRT (9.7%). One-year OS varied by treatment group, ranging from 35.1% (PRT alone) to 59.4% (CT + DRT). The one-year OS in a matched cohort was not significantly different between CT alone and CT + DRT (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69–1.10, p = 0.87). Most patients with non-metastatic AC not treated with surgery do not receive any treatment. There is no difference in one-year OS between those undergoing CT alone and CT + DRT.

show abstract

“…In addition, it requires that accredited programs maintain a cancer registry and submit that data annually to be aggregated into the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). There are over 1,500 CoC accredited programs that collectively treat over 70% of cancer patients in the United States . Beginning in 2005, the CoC started applying quality measures that could be assessed through the NCDB to all programs (measures related to breast cancer are outlined below).…”

Section: Breast Care Program Structure and Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beginning in 2005, the CoC established a program to develop quality measures and apply them to the cancer registry data submitted to the NCDB . The CoC provides each accredited cancer program an annual report of the percentage of cases that received care concordant with each measure.…”

Section: Programs In Use Applying Breast Quality Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality measurement in breast cancer

Edge

2014

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation in the quality of breast care affects outcomes. Objective measurement tools are central to this effort. Most quality measures are process measures. Application of these improves quality. Many national organizations are promoting them for purposes ranging from feedback to providers to public reporting and directing payment. Surgeons should evaluate their own practices and should be involved in local, regional and national efforts to assess and improve breast care.

show abstract

Using the American College of Surgeons Cancer Registry to Drive Quality

Abstract: A discussion of the uses and future plans of the National Cancer Data Base, which has been reengineered in recent years for applying and reporting quality measure data and most recently for rapid case ascertainment and patient care tracking.

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

State of palliative care services at US cancer centers: An updated national survey

State of palliative care services at US cancer centers: An updated national survey

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Patients with Ampullary Carcinoma Who Do Not Undergo Surgery

Quality measurement in breast cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About