Article Text

Download PDFPDF

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer
  1. David Cibula1,
  2. François Planchamp2,
  3. Daniela Fischerova1,
  4. Christina Fotopoulou3,
  5. Christhardt Kohler4,
  6. Fabio Landoni5,
  7. Patrice Mathevet6,
  8. Raj Naik7,
  9. Jordi Ponce8,
  10. Francesco Raspagliesi9,
  11. Alexandros Rodolakis10,
  12. Karl Tamussino11,
  13. Cagatay Taskiran12,
  14. Ignace Vergote13,
  15. Pauline Wimberger14,
  16. Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson15 and
  17. Denis Querleu2
  1. 1 Gynecologic Oncology Center First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
  2. 2 Clinical Research Unit, Institut Bergonie, Bordeaux, France
  3. 3 Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine, London, UK
  4. 4 Asklepios Hambourg Altona and Department of Gynecology, University of Cologne, Koln, Germany
  5. 5 Gynaecology, Universita degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
  6. 6 Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois Departement de gynecologie-obstetrique et genetique medicale, Lausanne, Switzerland
  7. 7 Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK
  8. 8 University Hospital of Bellvitge (IDIBELL), LHospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
  9. 9 Gynecologic Oncology, Isituto Tumori Milano, Milan, Italy
  10. 10 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athinon, Greece
  11. 11 Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
  12. 12 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
  13. 13 Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, ImmunOvar Research Group, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  14. 14 Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Technische Universitat Dresden Medizinische Fakultat Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
  15. 15 Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Cibula, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Prague, 110 00 Staré Město, Czechia; d_cibula{at}yahoo.com

Abstract

Background Optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer.

To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice.

Methods Quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives.

Results Fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes.

Discussion Implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer.

  • cervical cancer
  • surgical oncology
  • uterine cervical neoplasms
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, an indication of whether changes were made, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests DC has reported advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Roche, and Sotio; FR has reported activities for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Tesaro; IV has reported advisory boards for Advaxis, Inc, Eisai Inc, MSD Belgium, Roche NV, Genmab, F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, PharmaMar, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology Inc, AstraZeneca NV, Tesaro, Oncoinvent AS, Immunogen Inc, Sotio, contracted research (via KU Leuven) with Oncoinvent AS, Genmab, research grants from Amgen, Roche, Stichting tegen Kanker, accommodations and/or travel expenses from Takeda Oncology, PharmaMar, Genmab, Roche, AstraZeneca and Tesaro; DF, CF, CK, FL, PM, RN, FP, JP, DQ, AR, KT, CT, PW, and AGZE have reported no conflicts of interest.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles