Renovating the Commission on Cancer's Quality Measure Portfolio.

IMPORTANCE: Nearly 75% of newly diagnosed cancer patients in the United States will receive care from a hospital that is accredited by the Commission on Cancer (CoC). To support hospitals in their quality assurance efforts, the CoC maintains a portfolio of quality measures to give hospitals compliance data with select best practices for cancer care. As the CoC quality measures have evolved over recent years, many clinicians may lack awareness of the intent and content of the measure portfolio, as well as the mechanism by which new measures originate. OBSERVATIONS: The CoC quality measures are based on data that hospitals submit to the National Cancer Database, allowing the CoC to track compliance with a subset of consensus best practices. Each year, new measures are designed by diverse teams of specialists in the different treatment modalities for the tumor types covered by the portfolio. These proposed measures are then subjected to a range of vetting, refinement, and prioritization steps before being voted into the portfolio by the Quality Assurance and Data Committee of the CoC. Over the past 4 years, the CoC has worked to renovate not only the portfolio but also the process used to create and launch new measures, revise existing measures, and retire obsolete measures. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In the following overview, we outline the current measure process, highlight important changes to the portfolio, and share opportunities to further increase the impact.

National Survey of Patterns Employing Targeted MRI/US Guided Prostate Biopsy in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ ultrasound (MRI/US) guided biopsy is an emerging technology that has the potential to change standard of care for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This technology is rapidly proliferating, however quantitative analysis of these trends are unavailable. The objective of this study was to assess urologist opinions regarding implementing MRI/ US imaging into their practices. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed using research electronic data capture and completed by 291 practicing urologists within the United States registered through the American Urological Association. The survey gathered information regarding demographics, changes in MRI use, opinions on targeted MRI/US guided biopsy, and barriers to implementation. The survey results were analyzed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Practice setting and geographic region were signifIcantly associated with implementation of MRI/US guided biopsy. Total 72% of urologists in academic centers report using MRI/US targeted biopsy, compared to 38% in solo private practice. In the northeast 68% of urologists report using MRI/US biopsy, compared to 44% in the western United States. CONCLUSION: While there are some reservations about employing MRI/US guided biopsy as standard of care in all prostate biopsies, the data suggests urologists support its use, and are making efforts to introduce targeted MRI/US guided biopsy into their practice. Regional and practice setting variations exist in implementation.