National Cancer Institute Home at the National Institutes of Health |
Please wait while this form is being loaded....

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 192(3):743-8

Date: 2014 Sep

Abstract: PURPOSE: We assessed the relationship between health care system performance on nationally endorsed prostate cancer quality of care measures and prostate cancer treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 48,050 men from SEER-Medicare linked data diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009, and followed through 2010. Based on a composite quality measure we categorized the health care 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 health care system level quality of care with outcomes using multivariable logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent prostatectomy in 3-star vs 1-star health care systems were at lower risk for perioperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.00). However, they were more likely to undergo a procedure addressing treatment related morbidity, eg for sexual morbidity (11.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.043). In patients who received radiotherapy star ranking was not associated with treatment related morbidity. In all patients star ranking was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.15) or secondary cancer therapy (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: We found no consistent association between health care system quality and outcomes, which questions how meaningful these measures ultimately are for patients. Thus, future studies should focus on developing more discriminative quality measures.

Last Modified: 03 Sep 2013