Multidisciplinary team meeting and EUSOMA quality indicators in breast cancer care: A French regional multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluate breast cancer (BC) pathway at a regional level including public, private and university institutions. We assessed the quality of multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM) and compliance with a panel of European high-quality indicators (EUSOMA QIs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter (n = 20) study in the largest health care region in France. Between January and April 2015, we included all patients discussed at an MTM after a diagnosis of BC (n = 619). We analyzed quality of MTM by assessing the quorum, the reliability of data transcription and the exhaustivity of pre-therapeutic MTM. We then analyzed the compliance with a selected panel of 16 EUSOMA QIs. RESULTS: During MTM discussion, data were more than 95% consistent with medical records for 9/11 items. Pre-operative tumor histology (90.6%) and post-operative resection margins (84.3%) were the least concordant between medical records and MTM. Minimum standards as defined by EUSOMA were reached for 11/16 QIs, but not reached for pathology reports in non-invasive BC (78.2%), proportion of exclusive sentinel lymph node biopsies in patients with clinically negative axilla (85.2%), performing adjuvant chemotherapy (76.6%), and proportion of patients discussed in pre-therapeutic and post-operative MTM (63.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentric study evaluating the quality of BC care with a representative sample of institutions, compliance with EUSOMA indicators was satisfactory for all type of institutions. However, too few patients were discussed in pre-therapeutic MTM (especially in non-university hospitals 43.7% [39.4-48.1]) versus 88.7% for others [82.2-95.1]) and data transcription was likely responsible for up to 15% of discordance.

Are there variations in adherence to colorectal cancer clinical guidelines depending on treatment place and recommendation novelty? The French EvaCCoR observational study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown clinical practices variation between centers in colorectal cancer (CRC) management. After the implementation of national cancer plans, we tested for differences in center and patients' socioeconomic position (SEP)-related variation in CRC guidelines. METHODS: All patients aged 18 years and over, cared for a first CRC in 2010 in Southwest of France. We used mixed effect model to test for center-related heterogeneity (CRH) in recommendation, from the oldest to the more recent: (1) at least 12 lymph nodes analysed for stage II, (2) the prescription of adjuvant chemotherapy stage III and (3) the assessment of CRC molecular phenotype regarding KRAS status for stage IV. Patients' SEP was approached by an ecological social deprivation index. RESULTS: We found: higher adherence for the oldest than for the most recent recommendations; no CRH in recommendation No. 2 but lower adherence in academic centers; a CRH for recommendations No. 1 and 3; no SEP-related differences in clinical practices. CONCLUSION: Results showed that older recommendations have higher adherence but did not support increasing influence of centers characteristics and CRH as recommendations are more recent.