Variations in compliance to quality indicators by age for 41,871 breast cancer patients across Europe: A European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists database analysis

Kiderlen, M.; Ponti, Antonio; Tomatis, Mariano; Boelens, Petra G.; Bastiaannet, E.; Wilson, Robin; Velde, Cornelis J.H. van de; Audisio, Riccardo A.

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.03.013

Cited by 42 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the qualities of breast cancer screening methods and accreditation programs are reported in developed countries 12, 86, 87. This fact reflects the clinical stage at diagnosis, as early clinical stage disease (EC 0 and I) represents 5% of all tumors in India 17 and 50.9% in Europe 86. In DCs, tumors are usually palpable, large, and not at an early clinical stage at the time of diagnosis (Figure 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…DCs report difficulties with respect to mammography screening in women, while developed countries discuss the practice of mammography for specific ages, as 57.2% of the women aged 50 to 74 in the US 85 undergo regular mammography. In addition, the qualities of breast cancer screening methods and accreditation programs are reported in developed countries 12, 86, 87. This fact reflects the clinical stage at diagnosis, as early clinical stage disease (EC 0 and I) represents 5% of all tumors in India 17 and 50.9% in Europe 86.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, tumors diagnosed only by mammography are infrequent, and the incidence of carcinoma in situ is low. For example, carcinoma in situ varies and was 0.1% in African registries, 1% in India, 11.4% in Europe, 16% in North America and approximately 4.5% in other regions of the world 9, 17, 86.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Breast cancer screening in developing countries

Vieira¹,

Biller²,

Uemura³

et al. 2017

Clinics

186

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing countries have limited healthcare resources and use different strategies to diagnose breast cancer. Most of the population depends on the public healthcare system, which affects the diagnosis of the tumor. Thus, the indicators observed in developed countries cannot be directly compared with those observed in developing countries because the healthcare infrastructures in developing countries are deficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate breast cancer screening strategies and indicators in developing countries.A systematic review and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Timing, and Setting methodology were performed to identify possible indicators of presentation at diagnosis and the methodologies used in developing countries. We searched PubMed for the terms “Breast Cancer” or “Breast Cancer Screening” and “Developing Country” or “Developing Countries”.In all, 1,149 articles were identified. Of these articles, 45 full articles were selected, which allowed us to identify indicators related to epidemiology, diagnostic intervention (diagnostic strategy, diagnostic infrastructure, percentage of women undergoing mammography), quality of intervention (presentation of symptoms at diagnosis, time to diagnosis, early stage disease), comparisons (trend curves, subpopulations at risk) and survival among different countries.The identification of these indicators will improve the reporting of methodologies used in developing countries and will allow us to evaluate improvements in public health related to breast cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Breast cancer screening in developing countries

Vieira¹,

Biller²,

Uemura³

et al. 2017

Clinics

186

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the EUSOMA quality indicators are good tools to evaluate best practices in breast cancer, regardless of the country, and to standardise the quality of care. In this way, compliance with EUSOMA quality indicators has been assayed by age for more than 40 000 breast cancers across Europe (Kiderlen et al , 2015); 13 indicators considering treatment were used in this study, whereas diagnosis, staging and follow-up were not evaluated. Only one of the EUSOMA diagnosis indicators was evaluated in another European study (van Dam et al , 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, EUSOMA indicators are a useful tool to evaluate quality of care in routine practice. Some studies have already used several of these indicators to evaluate clinical practice, such as in surgery, chemotherapy or radiation (Kiderlen et al , 2015; van Dam et al , 2015). However, very few data have been published on the quality of preoperative clinical pathways, and most of them concern only surgery waiting time (Cordeiro et al , 2015; Liederbach et al , 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preoperative clinical pathway of breast cancer patients: determinants of compliance with EUSOMA quality indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) has defined quality indicators for breast cancer (BC). The aim of this study was to describe the preoperative clinical pathway of breast cancer patients and evaluate the determinants of compliance with EUSOMA quality indicators in the Optisoins01 cohort.Methods:Optisoins01 is a prospective, multicentric study. Data from operable BC patients were collected, including results from before surgery to 1 year follow-up. Seven preoperative EUSOMA quality indicators were compared with the clinical pathways Optisoins01.Results:Six hundred and four patients were included. European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists targets were reached for indicator 1 (completeness of clinical and imaging diagnostic work-up), 3 (preoperative definitive diagnosis) and 5 (waiting time). For indicator 8 (multidisciplinary discussion), the minimum standard of 90% of the patients was reached only in general hospitals and comprehensive cancer centres. Having more than 1 medical examination within the centre was associated with an increased waiting time for surgery, whereas it was reduced by having an outpatient breast biopsy. The comprehensive cancer centre type was the only parameter associated with the other quality indicators.Conclusions:European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists quality indicators are a useful tool to evaluate care organisations. This study highlights the need for a standardised and coordinated preoperative clinical pathway.

show abstract