Search

Purpose: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. Methods: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. Results: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. Conclusion: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify clinical and biologic variables with significant impact on survival in patients with carcinomas of an unknown primary site and to develop a simple prognostic model for the selection of patients in prospective clinical trials., Patients and Methods: Univariate and multivariate prognostic factor analyses were conducted in a population of 150 unselected patients and led to the construction of two successive classification schemes. An external data set of 116 patients enrolled onto two prospective trials was used for validation., Results: When studying clinical variables only, poor performance status (2 or 3) and presence of liver metastases were retained in the multivariate analysis. The first classification scheme consisted of three subgroups of patients with median survivals of 10.8, 6.0, and 2.4 months, according to the number of adverse prognostic factors. With the introduction of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels in a further step, liver metastases were no longer significant. The second classification scheme therefore included poor performance status (relative risk [RR], 2.1) and elevated serum LDH level (RR, 2.1). Good-risk and poor-risk patients were identified, with median survivals of 11.7 months and 3.9 months, respectively (P <.0001). The 1-year survival rates were 45% and 11%, respectively. This second classification scheme was validated in an external data set: the median survival rates of patients assigned to the good-risk group and the poor-risk group were 12 months and 7 months, respectively (P =.0089). The 1-year survival rates were 53% and 23%, respectively., Conclusion: A simple prognostic model using performance status and serum LDH levels was developed and validated. It allows the assignment of patients into two subgroups with divergent outcome. Further prospective trials will be designed using this prognostic model.