Neuro-oncology practice · 2025
European neuro-oncology quality assessment (ENOQUA): A European organization for the research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) brain tumor group research project.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Razis Evangelia, Gorlia Thierry, Preusser Matthias, Daisne Jean-François, Vanopdenbosch Ludo, Roth Patrick, Mair Maximilian J, Gross Markus Wolfram, Espeli Vittoria, Kazda Tomas, Bruna Jordi, Di Cristofori Andrea, Lombardi Giuseppe, Valeinis Egils, Brandsma Dieta, Malmstrom Annika, Brandal Petter, Azevedo Ana, Keric Naureen, Lohmann Philipp, Vernadou Anastasia, Baumert Brigitta Gertrud, Andratschke Nicolaus, Weller Michael, de Vos Filip, Hau Peter
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The care of patients with brain tumors is a complex task that requires quality standards and quality assurance indicators. In the present study, several quality indicators were evaluated in routine clinical care.
METHODS: The EORTC Brain Tumor Group (BTG) developed quality indicators from published guidelines and tested them in 19 BTG sites across Europe. Each site extracted data from the files of 20 randomly selected glioblastoma patients diagnosed in 2018. Associations between quality indicators, site characteristics and median overall survival (mOS) were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 364 patient files were evaluated at 19 sites. Excellent compliance was observed in the documentation of neuropathology report with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status (92.0%), O6 -methylguanine DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation (MGMT) status (78.0%), multidisciplinary case discussion (95.3 %), extent of resection (87.1%), and radiotherapy details (96.9%) as well as consent to chemotherapy (75.5%). Performance was not as good for early postoperative MRI (67.2%), psycho-oncological care (40.5%), avoiding antineoplastic therapy in the last weeks of life (63.1%) and early referral to palliative services (23.5%). Timely start of radiotherapy (P = .0153), the presence of a radiotherapy report in the medical record (P = .0077), and patient education on oral chemotherapy (P = .0002) were positively associated with mOS, while early referral to palliative care was associated with shorter mOS (P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The quality indicators tested in this research project performed with some variability between sites. Significant associations between individual quality indicators and mOS were observed. The proposed quality indicators should be validated prospectively.
METHODS: The EORTC Brain Tumor Group (BTG) developed quality indicators from published guidelines and tested them in 19 BTG sites across Europe. Each site extracted data from the files of 20 randomly selected glioblastoma patients diagnosed in 2018. Associations between quality indicators, site characteristics and median overall survival (mOS) were examined.
RESULTS: A total of 364 patient files were evaluated at 19 sites. Excellent compliance was observed in the documentation of neuropathology report with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status (92.0%), O6 -methylguanine DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation (MGMT) status (78.0%), multidisciplinary case discussion (95.3 %), extent of resection (87.1%), and radiotherapy details (96.9%) as well as consent to chemotherapy (75.5%). Performance was not as good for early postoperative MRI (67.2%), psycho-oncological care (40.5%), avoiding antineoplastic therapy in the last weeks of life (63.1%) and early referral to palliative services (23.5%). Timely start of radiotherapy (P = .0153), the presence of a radiotherapy report in the medical record (P = .0077), and patient education on oral chemotherapy (P = .0002) were positively associated with mOS, while early referral to palliative care was associated with shorter mOS (P < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The quality indicators tested in this research project performed with some variability between sites. Significant associations between individual quality indicators and mOS were observed. The proposed quality indicators should be validated prospectively.