Search

Background Methods Results Conclusions Quality performance indicators for the management of oesophagogastric cancer can be used to objectively measure and compare the performance of individual units and capture key elements of patient care to improve patient outcomes.Two systematic reviews were completed to identify evidence‐based quality performance indicators for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer. Based on the indicators identified, a two‐round modified Delphi process with invitations was sent to all members of the Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand Gastric and Oesophageal Surgery Association. The expert working group discussed each suggested indicator and either removed, added, or adjusted the list of indicators of oesophagogastric cancer.The final list of both OG cancer indicators included Specialized Multi‐disciplinary team discussion, Endoscopy documentation, Staging Contrast CT Chest/Abdomen and Pelvis, Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy administered in accordance with the Local multi‐disciplinary team, Pathological margin clearance (R0 Resection), Lymphadenectomy retrieving 15 or more nodes, Formal review of pathological findings and documentation, Postoperative complications, 30‐day and 90‐day postoperative mortality, clinical surveillance and Specialized Dietetic guidance. Indicators specific to gastric cancer included Preoperative biopsy for pathological diagnosis and Staging Laparoscopy.Indicators specific to oesophageal cancer include positron emission tomography scan if CT negative for metastasis, Perioperative Oesophagectomy Care Pathway, length of stay of 21 days or more, and Unplanned readmission within 30 days.The results of this study present a core set of indicators for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer that can be used to measure quality and compare performance between different units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The outcomes of palliative radiation therapy (RT) for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) are seldom reported. We investigated outcomes following palliative radiotherapy in a cohort of patients with NENs. We hypothesised that well‐differentiated NEN will be less likely to have a clinical response than poorly differentiated NEN. Methods: Patients who received at least one course of palliative RT were identified using the New Zealand NETwork! Registry. Patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, pulmonary small cell carcinoma or asymptomatic patients were excluded. Clinical response to RT within 90 days and overall survival were analysed alongside clinical variables (fractionation, RT site, tumour differentiation and tumour primary site). Results: The cohort comprised 79 patients, with 147 courses of palliative RT delivered. Clinical response was measurable for 100 courses, with clinical response rate of 76%. A course delivered to a well‐differentiated NEN was associated with 2.02‐fold (95% CI 0.67, 6.12; P = 0.21) increase in odds of a clinical response compared to a poorly differentiated NEN. Median overall survival from the first fraction of RT was 94 days (95% CI 80, 138 days). Overall survival was higher in well‐differentiated NEN than in poorly differentiated NEN (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.10–0.40, P‐value < 0.001); 30‐day mortality was 7%. There were significantly reduced odds of clinical response for non‐bone sites, and for courses >10 fractions compared to a single fraction. Conclusion: Palliative RT is an appropriate option for management of symptoms in patients with both well‐ and poorly differentiated metastatic NEN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality performance indicators (QPIs) are used to monitor the delivery of cancer care. Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a family of individually uncommon cancers that derive from neuroendocrine cells or their precursors, and can occur in most organs. There are currently no QPIs available for NETs and their heterogeneity makes QPI development difficult. CommNETs is a collaboration between NET clinicians, researchers and advocates in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We created QPIs for NETs using a three-step consensus process. First, a multidisciplinary team used the nominal group technique to create candidates (n = 133) which were then curated into appropriateness statements (62 statements, 44 sub-statements). A two-stage modified RAND/UCLA Delphi consensus process was conducted: an online survey rated the statement appropriateness then the top-ranked statements (n = 20) were assessed in a face-to-face meeting. Finally, 10 QPIs met consensus criteria; documentation of primary site, proliferative index, differentiation, tumour board review, use of a structured pathology report, presence of distant metastasis, 5- and 10-year disease-free and overall survival. These NET QPIs will be trialed as a method to monitor and improve care for people with NETs and to facilitate international comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]