National Cancer Institute Home at the National Institutes of Health |

Publication Abstract

Authors: Schroeck FR, Kaufman SR, Jacobs BL, Skolarus TA, Miller DC, Montgomery JS, Weizer AZ, Hollenbeck BK

Title: Adherence to Performance Measures and Outcomes among Men Treated for Prostate Cancer.

Journal: J Urol :-

Date: 2014 Mar 25

Abstract: PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between healthcare system performance on nationally endorsed prostate cancer quality of care measures and prostate cancer treatment outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including 48,050 men from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results - Medicare linked data who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009 and followed through 2010. Based on a composite quality measure, we categorized the healthcare systems in which these men were treated into 1-star (bottom 20%), 2-star (middle 60%), and 3-star (top 20%) systems. We then examined the association of healthcare system-level quality of care with outcomes using multivariable logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent prostatectomy in 3-star versus 1-star healthcare systems had a lower risk of perioperative complications (odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.00). However, these patients were more likely to undergo a procedure addressing treatment-related morbidity (e.g., 11.3% vs. 7.8% treated for sexual morbidity, p=0.043). Among patients undergoing radiotherapy, star-ranking was not associated with treatment-related morbidity. Among all patients, star-ranking was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.15) or secondary cancer therapy (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91-1.20). CONCLUSION: We found no consistent associations between healthcare system quality and outcomes, which questions how meaningful these measures ultimately are for patients. Thus, future studies should focus on the development of more discriminative quality measures.

Last Modified: 03 Sep 2013