Concordance with NCCN Colorectal Cancer Guidelines and ASCO/NCCN Quality Measures: An NCCN Institutional Analysis

View More View Less
  • a From the Department of Adult Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Biostatistics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California; Department of Urology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York; Department of Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Division of Hematology/Oncology, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.

Background

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Outcomes Database was created to assess concordance to evidence- and consensus-based guidelines and to measure adherence to quality measures on an ongoing basis. The Colorectal Cancer Database began in 2005 as a collaboration among 8 NCCN centers.

Methods

Newly diagnosed colon and rectal cancer patients presenting to 1 of 8 NCCN centers between September 1, 2005, and May 21, 2008, were eligible for analysis of concordance with NCCN treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer and with a set of quality metrics jointly developed by ASCO and NCCN in 2007. Adherence rates were determined for each metric. Center-specific rates were benchmarked against mean concordance rates for all participating centers.

Results

A total of 3443 patients were evaluable. Mean concordance rates with NCCN colorectal cancer guidelines and ASCO/NCCN quality measures were generally high (≥ 90%). However, relatively low mean concordance rates were noted for adjuvant chemotherapy treatment recommendations within 9 months of diagnosis of stage II to III rectal cancer (81%), and neoadjuvant chemoradiation in clinical T4 rectal primaries (83%). These low rates of concordance seemed to be consistent across centers.

Conclusions

Adherence to guidelines and quality measures is generally high at institutions participating in the NCCN colorectal cancer database. Lack of documentation, patient refusal, delayed treatment initiation, and lack of consensus about whether treatment was essential were the primary reasons for nonconcordance. Measurement of concordance and the reasons for nonconcordance enable participating centers to understand and improve their care delivery systems.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Correspondence: Deborah Schrag, MD, Department of Adult Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney Street, SM 204, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail: deb_schrag@dfci.harvard.edu
  • 1

    Herdman R, McGuire W, Simone J. Influencing Cancer Policy. Tracing the influence of an Institute of Medicine effort to improve the quality of cancer care. Health Affairs 2006;25:800807.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Hewitt M, Simone JV. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1999: 211225.

  • 3

    Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C. Outcomes Assessment in Cancer. Measures, Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States? J Clin Oncol 2006;244:626634.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society Extramural Grants Programs in Effect September 1, 1998. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 1998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    American Society of Clinical Oncology. The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. Available at: http://qopi.asco.org. Accessed July 22, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    National Cancer Institute. Cancer Topics: Colon and Rectal Cancer. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/colon-and-rectal. Accessed July 22, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Cancer Trends Progress Report – 2007 Update. National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD, December 2007. Available at: http://progressreport.cancer.gov. Accessed July 22, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Schrag D. The price tag on progress—chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:317319.

  • 10

    Engstrom PF, Arnoletti JP, Benson AB. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Colon Cancer, version 2, 2009. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/colon.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Engstrom PF, Arnoletti JP, Benson AB. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Rectal Cancer, version 2, 2009. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/rectal.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    ASCO/NCCN Quality Measures: Breast and Colorectal Cancers. Press Release. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/quality_measures/default.asp. Accessed July 22, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2005. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/. Accessed July 22, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Hassett MJ, Hughes M, Niland J. Selecting high priority quality measures for breast cancer quality improvement. Med Care 2008;46:762770.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 412 186 19
PDF Downloads 172 65 10
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0