How to implement the requirements of a quality assurance system for prostate cancer

Abstract

Purpose

In 2003, the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG) launched a certification program aimed at improving the quality of cancer care. The purpose of this article is to describe the experience of the Prostate Cancer Unit (PCU) at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, in the process towards DKG certification.

Methods

In 2018, PCU decided to apply for certification by adopting DKG catalogue of requirements (CoR) and quality indicators. A multiprofessional working group was established with the aim of acting the necessary steps to meet DKG standards.

Results

Our organizational setting (procedures, personnel) and activities were accurately analyzed, thus outlining strengths and weaknesses, and modified to comply with DKG CoR and indicators. As examples, (1) a quality management plan was developed; (2) measures were taken to strengthen the surgical expertise; (3) cases evaluated in weekly tumor boards were expanded to include surgical cases with pathological risk factors, metastatic, relapsed and castration-resistant patients; (4) a survey was added to the patient-dedicated initiatives already scheduled; (5) the TuDoc software became the tool to register all new cases of prostate cancer patients referred to PCU.

Conclusions

The process of certification requires many efforts but represents a unique opportunity of improving quality of care of prostate cancer patients, making it comparable on an international scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    European Partnership Action Against Cancer consensus group (2014) Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care. Eur J Cancer 50:475–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fennell ML, Das IP, Clauser S et al (2010) The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 40:72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kurpad R, Kim W, Rathmell WK et al (2011) A multidisciplinary approach to the management of urologic malignancies: does it influence diagnostic and treatment decisions? Urol Oncol 29:378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD et al (2012) Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13722 women. BMJ 344:e2718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jelenc M, Van Hoof E, Albreht T et al (2012) Joint action European partnership for action against cancer. Arch. Public Health 70:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Magnani T, Bracarda S, D'Angelillo RM et al (2019) Multidisciplinary teams for the proper management of patients with genitourinary tumors: When topics set scientific societies' agenda. Tumori 105:161–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Valdagni R, Albers P, Bangma C et al (2011) The requirements of a specialist prostate cancer unit: a discussion paper from the European School of Oncology. Eur J Cancer 47:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Valdagni R, Van Poppel H, Aitchison M et al (2015) Prostate Cancer Unit Initiative in Europe: a position paper by the European School of Oncology. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 95:133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wirth M, Fossati N, Albers P et al (2019) The European Prostate Cancer Centres of Excellence: A Novel Proposal from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Centre Consensus Meeting. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    NICE Guidance (2019) NICE guidelines prostate cancer. BJU Int. 124:9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 2.2019) (2019) https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf

  12. 12.

    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wolff RF, Ryder S, Bossi A et al (2015) A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 51:2345–2367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM et al (2004) Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1358–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 358:1250–1261

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1425–1437

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I et al (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wesselman S, Beckmann MW (2014) The concept of the certification system of the German Cancer Society and its impact on gynecological cancer care. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289:7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kowalski C, Graeven U, von Kalle C et al (2017) Shifting cancer care towards multidisciplinarity: the cancer center certification program of the German cancer society. BMC Cancer 17:850–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Saghatchian M, Thonon F, Boomsma F et al (2014) Pioneering quality assessment in European cancer centers: a data analysis of the organization for European cancer institutes accreditation and designation program. J Oncol Pract 10:e342–e349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Saghatchian M, Hummel H, Otter R et al (2008) Organisation of European Cancer Institutes. Towards quality, comprehensiveness and excellence. The accreditation project of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI). Tumori 94:164–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Griesshammer E, Wesselmann S (2019) European Cancer Centre Certification Programme Der Gynäkologe A European way to quality of cancer care. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-019-4398-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Magnani T, Valdagni R, Salvioni R et al (2012) The 6-year attendance of a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic in Italy: incidence of management changes. BJU Int 110:998–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Voigt W, Hoellthaler J, Magnani T et al (2014) 'Act on oncology' as a new comprehensive approach to assess prostate cancer centres—method description and results of a pilot study. PLoS ONE 9:e106743. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106743

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Spencer BA, Miller DC, Litwin MS et al (2008) Variations in quality of care for men with early-stage prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3735–3742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2012) International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 61:1079–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Fondazione Italo Monzino, Milan, for the support to the activities of the Prostate Cancer Program and the Prostate Cancer Unit. A special thank to the Prostate Cancer Unit Core Team, Non Core Team and Project Team who participate in the management of prostate cancer patients: A. Alessi, B. Avuzzi, F. Badenchini, A. Balzarini, L. Bellardita, C. Borreani, A. Candosin, M. Carrara, A. Casale, M. Catanzaro, A. Cavallo, A. Cerrotta, M. Claps, M. Colecchia, L. De Luca, T. Di Florio, S. Donegani, P. Dordoni, C. Fallai, L. Gatto, T. Giandini, R. Lanocita, M. Maccauro, A. Macchi, T. Magnani, C. Marenghi, C. Martini, A. Messina, S. Morlino, N. Nicolai, B. Noris Chiorda, E. Pignoli, G. Procopio, C. Ripamonti, E. Seregni, C. Spreafico, S. Stagni, A. Tesone, T. Torelli, M. Vaiani, R. Valdagni, E. Verzoni, S. Villa, F. Zollo

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BNC: Manuscript concept, Manuscript writing. FZ: Data collection, Manuscript concept, Manuscript writing. TM: Coordination, Manuscript concept, Manuscript writing. FB: Data collection, Manuscript review. MC: Manuscript review. LG: Data collection, Manuscript review. AM: Manuscript review. LA: Manuscript review. NN: Manuscript review. SV: Manuscript concept, Manuscript review. RV: Manuscript concept, Manuscript review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiziana Magnani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and no grant supported the research described in the paper.

Research involving human or animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors and there was no need to collect an informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Noris Chiorda, B., Zollo, F., Magnani, T. et al. How to implement the requirements of a quality assurance system for prostate cancer. World J Urol 39, 41–47 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03024-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multidisciplinarity
  • Certification
  • Quality of care
  • Prostate cancer