Adherence to French and ESGO Quality Indicators in Ovarian Cancer Surgery: An Ad-Hoc Analysis from the Prospective Multicentric CURSOC Study.

Abstract

Simple SummaryFrench and European Quality Indicators have been developed for the management of ovarian cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess the ovarian cancer care distribution in France according to the volume of patients treated per hospital, and to evaluate the adherence of different centers to the quality indicators. We found that the majority of ovarian cancer patients were treated in hospitals that did not reach recommended cut-off values in terms of volume, and it is known that surgical care in low-volume hospitals is associated with worse outcome. Only 44% of high-volume centers met all the quality indicator criteria. Therefore, access to high-volume ovarian cancer providers accomplishing all the recommended institutional quality indicators is restricted to a minority of patients in France. It is mandatory that national authorities work both to improve the centralization of ovarian cancer management and to incorporate quality assurance programs into certified centers.Background: Quality Indicators for ovarian cancer (OC) have been developed by the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) and by the French National Cancer Institute (Institut National du Cancer, INCa). The aim of the study was to characterize OC care distribution in France by case-volume and to prospectively evaluate the adherence of high-volume institutions to INCa/ESGO quality indicators. Methods: The cost-utility of radical surgery in ovarian cancer (CURSOC) trial is a prospective, multicenter, comparative and non-randomized study that includes patients with stage IIIC-IV epithelial OC treated in nine French health care tertiary institutions. Adherence to institutional quality indicators were anonymously assessed by an independent committee. OC care distribution in France were provided by the nationwide database of hospital procedures. Results: More than half of patients are treated in low-volume institutions. Among the nine high-volume centers participating in the study, four (44.4%) met all institutional INCa/ESGO quality indicators. The other five (55.6%) did not fulfil one of the quality indicator criteria. Conclusions: Access to high-volume OC providers in France is restricted to a minority of patients, and yet half of the referral institutions included in this study failed to meet all recommended institutional quality indicators. It is mandatory that national authorities work both to improve OC centralization and to incorporate quality assurance programs into certified centers.