First National Effort to Optimize the Performance of Cancer Surgery by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and Cancer Surgery Standards Program

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the first 3 years of compliance with the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) Operative Standards. BACKGROUND: CoC implemented evidence-based standards to improve the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer (operative standards 5.3 and 5.4), wide local excision for melanoma (5.5), colectomy for colon cancer (5.6), proctectomy for rectal cancer (5.7), and pulmonary resection for lung cancer (5.8) at ∼1400 programs treating >74% of US cancer patients. Each operative standard defines a technical element of the operation and structured documentation. METHODS: Compliance data are from site visits conducted between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024 (implementation/site visits began in 2021/2022 for 5.7 and 5.8 and 2023/2024 for 5.3-5.6). Compliance with each operative standard was determined by evaluation of 7 operative (5.3-5.6) or pathology (5.7, 5.8) reports. Deficiency in technical performance, documentation, or both was considered noncompliance. RESULTS: Reviewers conducted 974 site visits of Comprehensive Community (44%), Community (23%), Academic Comprehensive (16%), network (12%), NCI-Designated Comprehensive (4%), and other (1%) cancer programs. Program compliance rates ranged from 53% to 88%. Documentation noncompliance was more common for standards 5.3 to 5.6 (based on operative reports), and technical noncompliance was more common for 5.7 and 5.8 (based on pathology reports). Compliance significantly ( P =0.006) varied by program type for 5.8 (highest: 66% at NCI-designated Comprehensive programs; lowest: 37% at Community Cancer programs). CONCLUSIONS: Early compliance with CoC operative standards varied, indicating local and large-scale national quality improvement efforts are needed.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.