Breast Cancer Quality Measures Research Articles

Measuring geographic variation in quality and equity of breast cancer care.

139 Background: Persistent higher breast cancer mortality among Black Americans is partly due to treatment disparities. There is a paucity of surveillance data quantifying racial disparities at local levels, and the relationship of geography to racial disparities in treatment is poorly understood. We sought to develop and apply a claims-based set of breast cancer quality measures, stratified by race, across regions of North Carolina. Methods: We created a retrospective cohort (n = 37,021) of stage I-III breast cancers from 2004-2017 using linked cancer registry and multi-payer claims data. We assessed 4 quality measures derived from ASCO/NCCN and Commission on Cancer including chemotherapy (CT) for hormone receptor negative disease, radiation (RT) after breast conserving surgery (BCS), RT for N2-3 disease, and adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET). Each measure was limited to the ages and tumor features eligible by the ASCO/NCCN/CoC guideline. We estimated age-adjusted overall performance (%) on each measure, and the Black-White gap, at the state level and across 9 geographic sub-regions. We used multivariable Poisson regression to estimate Risk Ratios (RR) comparing quality performance for Black vs. White patients overall and across regions. Exploratory analyses adjusted for patient- and neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH). Results: Median age of the cohort was 68 years and 19% of patients were Black. At the state level, the % of eligible patients meeting quality measures ranged from 73% for adjuvant ET to 95% for RT after BCS. There was significant inter-region variation on all 4 measures. Black patients were less likely to receive adjuvant CT (RR = 0.92, CI 0.87-0.96), post-BCS RT (RR = 0.98, CI 0.97-0.99) and ET (RR = 0.95, CI 0.93-0.98). There was no racial disparity in RT for N2-3 disease. Both overall performance and the magnitude of disparity varied widely across regions and geographic patterns were not consistent across measures. For example, the Charlotte region had the top quality performance for RT for N+ (90%), but worst for ET (70%). Similarly, the Wake region had no racial disparities in CT or RT, but the largest disparity of any region for ET (RR = 0.90, CI 0.84-0.96). Adjustment for SDOH modestly attenuated the relationship between race and quality performance, but significant disparities persisted in the regions with the largest racial gaps. Conclusions: Racial disparities persist in breast cancer care delivery, but with non-uniformity of performance across measures and varying local patterns of disparities. Our findings suggest that cross-cutting interventions spanning the care continuum, and/or interventions adapted to local challenges, may be needed to effectively address racial disparities. The contributions of local resources, structural, and institutional barriers to these patterns remain to be explored. Community-engaged work to share and interpret these findings is ongoing.

Identifying Breast Cancer Care Quality Measures for a Cancer Facility in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa: Results of a Systematic Literature Review and Modified Delphi Process.

PURPOSEThe burden of cancer is growing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including sub-Saharan Africa. Ensuring the delivery of high-quality cancer care in such regions is a pressing concern. There is a need for strategies to identify meaningful and relevant quality measures that are applicable to and usable for quality measurement and improvement in resource-constrained settings.METHODSTo identify quality measures for breast cancer care at Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence (BCCOE) in Rwanda, we used a modified Delphi process engaging two panels of experts, one with expertise in breast cancer evidence and measures used in high-income countries and one with expertise in cancer care delivery in Rwanda.RESULTSOur systematic review of the literature yielded no publications describing breast cancer quality measures developed in a low-income country, but it did provide 40 quality measures, which we adapted for relevance to our setting. After two surveys, one conference call, and one in-person meeting, 17 measures were identified as relevant to pathology, staging and treatment planning, surgery, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, palliative care, and retention in care. Successes of the process included participation by a diverse set of global experts and engagement of the BCCOE community in quality measurement and improvement. Anticipated challenges include the need to continually refine these measures as resources, protocols, and measurement capacity rapidly evolve in Rwanda.CONCLUSIONA modified Delphi process engaging both global and local expertise was a promising strategy to identify quality measures for breast cancer in Rwanda. The process and resulting measures may also be relevant for other LMIC cancer facilities. Next steps include validation of these measures in a retrospective cohort of patients with breast cancer.

BPI19-008: Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Treatment Based on NCCN Quality Guidelines

Background: NCCN quality measures for breast cancer include (1) radiation therapy administered within 1 year of diagnosis for women under age 70 receiving breast-conserving surgery; (2) chemotherapy considered in 4 months of diagnosis for women under 70 with T1c or stage II/III ER/PR- tumors; (3) endocrine therapy administered within 1 year of diagnosis for women with AJCC T1 or stage II/III ER/PR+ breast cancer. These evidence-based measures promote accountability for providers and allow transparency in quality of care. Black women are less likely than white women to receive these therapies that are associated with a survival benefit. Improving adherence to guidelines can decrease the gap in mortality rates for minority women with breast cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review on patients with breast cancer between April 2010 and October 2015 at Rush University. Information collected included time of diagnosis, clinical stage, ER/PR status, surgical procedures, radiation, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and demographics. Chi-squared analysis was done to compare percent of black versus white women who met each quality guideline. Results: In total, 2,436 women were analyzed, of whom 30.3% were black, 66% were white, and 3.7% were other. Of this cohort, 779 women met inclusion criteria for quality guideline 1, and there was no significant difference between black and white women who did not receive radiation therapy (P=.21; 24.7% vs 20.4%). For quality guideline 2 (n=382), there was also no significant difference between black and white women who did not get chemotherapy within 4 months of diagnosis (P=.32; 36.6% vs 31.4%). However, for quality guideline 3 (n=1,222), there was a statistically significant difference between black and white women who did not get hormone therapy within a year of diagnosis (P=.0008; 36.9% vs 26.1%). Conclusions: Endocrine therapy reduces risk of recurrence and mortality in women with ER/PR positive breast cancer; however, there is a disparity between black versus white women who meet this NCCN quality measure. Further studies are needed to understand the reason for this gap in quality of care so that specific interventions can be implemented to eliminate this disparity.

Impact of Breast Center Accreditation on Compliance with Breast Quality Performance Measures at Commission on Cancer-Accredited Centers.

This study was designed to determine whether accreditation by the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) is associated with improved performance on six breast quality measures pertaining to adjuvant treatment, needle/core biopsy, and breast conservation therapy rates at Commission on Cancer (CoC) centers. National Cancer Database 2015 data were retrospectively reviewed to compare patients treated at CoC centers with and without NAPBC accreditation for compliance on six breast cancer quality measures. Mixed effects modeling determined performance on the quality measures adjusting for patient, tumor, and facility factors. Of 1308 CoC facilities, 484 (37%) were NAPBC-accredited and 111,547 patients (48%) were treated at NAPBC centers. More than 80% of patients treated at both NAPBC and non-NAPBC centers received care in compliance with breast quality measures. NAPBC centers achieved significantly higher performance on four of the five quality measures than non-NAPBC centers at the patient level and on five of six measures at the facility level. For two measures, needle/core biopsy before surgical treatment of breast cancer and breast conservation therapy rate of 50%, NAPBC centers were twice as likely as non-NAPBC centers to perform at the level expected by the CoC (respectively odds ratio [OR] 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-2.08, p < 0.0001; and OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.94-2.15, p < 0.0001). While NAPBC accreditation at CoC centers is associated with higher performance on breast quality measures, the majority of patients at all centers receive guideline-concordant care. Future studies will determine whether higher performance translates into improved oncologic and patient-reported outcomes.

Treatment delays from transfers of care and their impact on breast cancer quality measures.

Despite delays between diagnosis and surgery adversely affecting survival, patients frequently transfer their breast cancer care between institutions. This study was performed to assess the prevalence and effect of such transfers of care (TsOC) on the time to surgery, and its impact on current time-dependent breast cancer quality metrics at Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC)-accredited institutions. Patients having non-metastatic invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2015 at CoC and NAPBC centers ("reporting facilities") in the National Cancer Database were reviewed. TsOC refer to transferring into or out of a reporting facility between diagnosis and surgery. Among 622,793 patients, 36.6% of patients transferred care. TsOC add 7.3, 7.8, 8.7, and 9.8 days in time to surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and endocrine therapy, respectively (p's < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, the odds of surgery occurring > 90 days from diagnosis were greatest for patients undergoing unilateral or bilateral mastectomy, Black or Hispanic patients, and those having TsOC (ORs > 1.73, p's < 0.0001). TsOC increase the odds of non-compliance, per patient, for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and endocrine therapy time-dependent measures by 65.4%, 25.6%, and 56.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). TsOC for newly diagnosed breast cancers to or from an accredited facility result in delays in time to surgery which can affect compliance with time-dependent quality measures. Facilities frequently receiving transferred patients may be most adversely affected. Although non-compliance with these quality measures is low, institutions and accrediting bodies should be aware of these associations in order to comply with time-dependent standards.

The quality of breast cancer quality measures.

108 Background: To assess quality in breast cancer care, standardized metrics are needed. Many accepted breast performance metrics are based on evidence-based practice; however, most fail to reflect patient choice in treatment decisions. Given the focus on patient-centered breast care, we sought to determine how compliance with established quality metrics correlates with receipt of breast cancer care impacted by patient preference. Methods: American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Cancer Data Base facilities were designated compliant or non-compliant based on Commission of Cancer (CoC) breast metrics MASTRT, BCSRT and HT*, which all improve survival. Compliant facilities met the expected performance rate (EPR) for all three metrics, while non-compliant facilities failed to meet the EPR for any. Rates of breast conserving surgery (BCS) for early stage cancer, immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are proposed metrics that are impacted by patient preference. For these, quality is defined as high rates of BCS, high rates of IBR, and low rates of CPM. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between facility level rates on these measures and the probability of treatment at a CoC compliant facility. Results: 729 facilities were included in the analysis. Based on the CoC measures, 79 (10.8%) were considered compliant and 650 (89.2%) non-compliant. Rates of BCS and IBR did not differ between compliant and non-compliant facilities; however, women treated at compliant facilities were more likely to undergo CPM (26.3% vs 21.4%; p = 0.02). In a multivariate model treatment at compliant facilities was associated with higher rates of BCS, IBR, and CPM; however, the predictive value of these metrics was minimal (Estimated OR range: 1.01-1.03). Conclusions: Rates of preference driven therapies do not differentiate CoC compliant and non-compliant hospitals. The quality of a hospital’s breast care is likely poorly measured by metrics that are influenced by, but cannot account for patient values. *MASTRT (RT≤1yr of diagnosis in women with ≥4 +lymph nodes); BCSRT (RT ≤1yr of diagnosis for women ≤70 receiving BCS); HT (hormone therapy recommended ≤1yr of diagnosis for HR-positive breast cancer)

Racial disparities in breast cancer treatment based on ASCO/NCCN quality guidelines.

e18654Background: ASCO/NCCN quality measures for breast cancer include 1) radiation therapy administered within 1 year of diagnosis for women under age 70 receiving breast-conserving surgery; 2) ch...

Benchmarking the American Society of Breast Surgeon Member Performance for More Than a Million Quality Measure-Patient Encounters

BackgroundNine breast cancer quality measures (QM) were selected by the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Programs (QPP) and other performance improvement programs. We report member performance.Study DesignSurgeons entered QM data into an electronic registry. For each QM, aggregate “performance met” (PM) was reported (median, range and percentiles) and benchmarks (target goals) were calculated by CMS methodology, specifically, the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ (ABC) method.ResultsA total of 1,286,011 QM encounters were captured from 2011–2015. For 7 QM, first and last PM rates were as follows: (1) needle biopsy (95.8, 98.5%), (2) specimen imaging (97.9, 98.8%), (3) specimen orientation (98.5, 98.3%), (4) sentinel node use (95.1, 93.4%), (5) antibiotic selection (98.0, 99.4%), (6) antibiotic duration (99.0, 99.8%), and (7) no surgical site infection (98.8, 98.9%); all p values < 0.001 for trends. Variability and reasons for noncompliance by surgeon for each QM were identified. The CMS-calculated target goals (ABC™ benchmarks) for PM for 6 QM were 100%, suggesting that not meeting performance is a “never should occur” event.ConclusionsSurgeons self-reported a large number of specialty-specific patient-measure encounters into a registry for self-assessment and participation in QPP. Despite high levels of performance demonstrated initially in 2011 with minimal subsequent change, the ASBrS concluded “perfect” performance was not a realistic goal for QPP. Thus, after review of our normative performance data, the ASBrS recommended different benchmarks than CMS for each QM.

Can protocol development improve breast cancer and breast surgery quality measures?

119 Background: Since 2009, UF Health Jacksonville has made significant changes in the Breast Cancer Program. These changes spanned across multiple specialties and have focused on creating protocols, guidelines, checklists, and policies for the management of breast cancer. This study evaluated the effect of standardized institutional protocols on breast cancer quality measures. Methods: Tumor registry was used to identify 350 patients who were diagnosed and treated at UF Health Jacksonville for breast cancer from 2006-2012 (Stage 0-III excluding LCIS). A retrospective review of electronic health records was performed to compare the achievement of quality measures 2 years before program development (6/2006 – 6/2008) to that of 2 years after program development (6/2010 -6/2012). Results: There were significant improvements in breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment quality measures after establishment of standardized protocols. Performance of pre-surgical needle biopsies regardless of diagnostic outcome (90% vs. 96%, p=0.02), and diagnosis of carcinoma via needle biopsy (50% vs. 87%, p=0.04) both showed significant improvement. More patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy post-protocol (43% vs. 68%, p&lt;0.001). There was improvement in surgical specimen orientation (58% vs. 88%, p&lt;0.001), and image confirmation of the specimen post-protocol (86% vs. 97%, p=0.01). There was a reduction of second or additional operations (44% vs. 26%, p=0.004), which included a significant reduction in lumpectomy re-excisions for margins (30% vs. 14%, p=0.003). There was a non-significant improvement in attempted (64% vs. 71%, p=0.17), and successful breast conservation surgery (57% vs. 65%, p=0.10). There were no significant changes in the rates of recommendation for adjuvant radiation, endocrine, or chemotherapy. There was no improvement in patient adherence to the recommended adjuvant therapy based on protocol implementation. Conclusions: Implementation of standardized institutional protocols can significantly increase achievement of quality measures in breast cancer diagnosis and surgery. However, these protocols did not have a significant effect on systemic therapy or radiation therapy quality measures.

Do the CMS proposed breast cancer quality measures actually predict improved outcomes?

Background In 2007, professional collaborations developed a unified set of quality standards for breast cancer care. Methods This was an Institutional Review Board–approved, retrospective review of all breast cancer patients treated initially at University of Oklahoma Medical Center from 2000 to 2008. All tumor registry data were reviewed to test compliance with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (Medicare) quality standards. Results Overall and disease-free survival was better for patients meeting the radiation for breast conservation standard ( P < .02). Whether estrogen receptor positive (ER+) or estrogen receptor negative, there were similar statistically significant benefits of combination chemotherapy in overall and disease-free survival rates for all patients with tumors greater than 1 cm in size ( P < .05). Hormonal therapy was associated with an overall survival benefit ( P < .005) but only a trend toward improvement in disease-free survival ( P = .076). Conclusions We believe the current CMS standards are a reasonable first step at monitoring breast cancer quality of care. Our data suggest that these may be improved by including combination chemotherapy in ER+ disease when data show a net survival benefit over hormonal therapy alone.

Selecting High Priority Quality Measures For Breast Cancer Quality Improvement

Although many quality measures have been created, there is no consensus regarding which are the most important. We sought to develop a simple, explicit strategy for prioritizing breast cancer quality measures based on their potential to highlight areas where quality improvement efforts could most impact a population. Using performance data for 9019 breast cancer patients treated at 10 National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions, we assessed concordance relative to 30 reliable, valid breast cancer process-based treatment measures. We identified 4 attributes that indicated there was room for improvement and characterized the extent of burden imposed by failing to follow each measure: number of nonconcordant patients, concordance across all institutions, highest concordance at any 1 institution, and magnitude of benefit associated with concordant care. For each measure, we used data from the concordance analyses to derive the first 3 attributes and surveyed expert breast cancer physicians to estimate the fourth. A simple algorithm incorporated these attributes and produced a final score for each measure; these scores were used to rank the measures. We successfully prioritized quality measures using explicit, objective methods and actual performance data. The number of nonconcordant patients had the greatest influence on the rankings. The highest-ranking measures recommended chemotherapy and hormone therapy for hormone-receptor positive tumors and radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery. This simple, explicit approach is a significant departure from methods used previously, and effectively identifies breast cancer quality measures that have broad clinical relevance. Systematically prioritizing quality measures could increase the efficiency and efficacy of quality improvement efforts and substantially improve outcomes.

Evaluation of quality measures for breast cancer care in a community setting

6545 Background: Compliance with National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality (NICCQ) quality indicators and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for breast cancer care are proposed measures of quality breast cancer care. Previously, we had determined NCCN guideline compliance rates for breast cancer care by physician review of electronic medical record (EMR). In the present study, we sought to compare NCCN guideline compliance and NICCQ adherence at our institution in regard to percent compliance, time taken to complete review, and comparison of physician reviewer (PR) versus non-physician reviewer (NPR). Methods: Review of the EMR was conducted for all 200 female patients who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer and treated at our multi-specialty institution in 2004. A PR and a NPR reviewed compliance with NICCQ quality indicators and NCCN guidelines for breast cancer care and time spent reviewing charts was recorded. Results: Adherence rate was less than 85% in only 7 of 36 NICCQ breast cancer quality measures for PR and only 6 of 36 for NPR. Patients overall received 91.5 % of NICCQ recommended care according to PR and 89.8% according to NPR. NICCQ measures were divided into categories to correspond with NCCN guideline categories and results are compared and summarized in the table below. Differences in observed compliance rates between PR and NPR were not significant for NCCN (except in pre-op workup where NPR was more accurate) or overall NICCQ audit, however differences were seen in individual NICCQ items with small numbers of patients. Average time for review of charts for NCCN guideline compliance vs. NICCQ adherence was not significantly different (6.8 vs. 6.3 minutes for PR and 8.3 vs. 8.9 minutes for the NPR). Conclusions: Our adherence rates for NICCQ and NCCN measures compare favorably with published values. Despite both being proposed quality measures, comparison of adherence rates for the two systems varied. PR is slightly faster than NPR but offset by PR's time value. A NPR performs as well, if not better, than a PR. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]