In lung cancer, outcome measurement has been mostly limited to survival. Proper assessment of the value of lung cancer treatments, and the performance of institutions delivering care, requires more comprehensive measurement of standardised outcomes.The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened an international, multidisciplinary working group of patient representatives, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, palliative care specialists, registry experts and specialist nurses to review existing data and practices. Using a modified Delphi method, the group developed a consensus recommendation (“the set”) on the outcomes most essential to track for patients with lung cancer, along with baseline demographic, clinical and tumour characteristics (case-mix variables) for risk adjustment.The set applies to patients diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Our working group recommends the collection of the following outcomes: survival, complications during or within 6 months of treatment and patient-reported domains of health-related quality of life including pain, fatigue, cough and dyspnoea. Case-mix variables were defined to improve interpretation of comparisons.We defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients, along with relevant case-mix variables, and are working to support adoption and reporting of these measures globally.

A standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures to inform value-based health care in colorectal cancer was developed. Pilot efforts are under way to measure the standard set among members of the working group.

Our international group has recommended a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes to be followed during routine care for all men with advanced prostate cancer.

A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide.

Results shown an overall high quality of breast cancer care in all hospitals in the Netherlands. For most quality indicators improvement was seen over time, while some indicators showed yet unexplained variation. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:243-249. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PurposeIn this retrospective population-based cohort study, we analyzed breast MRI use and its impact on type of surgery, surgical margin involvement, and the diagnosis of contralateral breast cancer.MethodsAll Dutch patients with cT1–4N0–3M0 breast cancer diagnosed in 2011–2013 and treated with primary surgery were eligible for inclusion. Using multivariable analyses, we analyzed in different categories whether MRI use was related to surgery type, margin involvement, and diagnosis of contralateral breast cancer (CBC).ResultsMRI was performed in 10,740 out of 36,050 patients (29.8%). Patients with invasive ductal cancer undergoing MRI were more likely to undergo primary mastectomy than those without MRI (OR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22–1.39, p < 0.0001). Patients with invasive lobular cancer undergoing MRI were less likely to undergo primary mastectomy than those without MRI (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76–0.99, p = 0.0303). A significantly lower risk of positive surgical margins after breast-conserving surgery was only seen in patients with lobular cancer who had undergone MRI as compared to those without MRI (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44–0.79, p = 0.0003) and, consequently, a lower risk of secondary mastectomy (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42–0.88, p = 0.0088). Patients who underwent MRI were almost four times more likely to be diagnosed with CBC (OR 3.55, 95% CI 3.01–4.17, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsBreast MRI use was associated with a reduced number of mastectomies and less positive surgical margins in invasive lobular cancer, but with an increased number of mastectomies in ductal cancers. Breast MRI use was associated with a fourfold higher incidence of CBC.

No abstract

Hospital ranks changed after case-mix adjustment and random-effects models, compared with unadjusted analysis. A large proportion of hospital variation in mortality was due to chance. Caution should be warranted when interpreting hospital rankings on the basis of postoperative mortality. Percentiles of expected ranks may help identify hospitals with exceptional performance.