Search

This research project evaluates the impact of systematic (organized) mammography screening compared to no screening. In order to do so, different aspects, such as mortality, harms and tumor stage shift, are assessed.

This systematic review aims to summarize and evaluate the evidence regarding possible differences in performance (or quality) indicators of breast cancer screening through systematic (organized) breast cancer screening programs compared with opportunistic breast cancer screening.

This research project aims to summarize the published evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of systematic (organized) breast cancer screening compared to no screening or opportunistic (non-systematic) screening and to estimate the potential budget impact of breast cancer screening in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tam-10.1177_17588359211027837 for Largely varying patterns and trends of primary cancer-directed resection for gastric carcinoma with synchronous distant metastasis in Europe and the US: a population-based study calling for further standardization of care by Lei Huang, Lina Jansen, Rob H.A. Verhoeven, Jelle P. Ruurda, Liesbet Van Eycken, Harlinde De Schutter, Jan Johansson, Mats Lindblad, Tom B. Johannesen, Vesna Zadnik, Tina Žagar, Margit Mägi, Sjoerd M. Lagarde, Esther Bastiaannet, Cornelis J.H. van de Velde, Petra Schrotz-King and Hermann Brenner in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

BackgroundQuality indicators (QI) have been developed to measure quality of colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to evaluate if these QI consistently assess the quality of colorectal cancer care in a hospital (internal consistency) and if these QI correlate with each other (construct validity). MethodsThe performance of 85 hospitals participating in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit between the 1st of January 2010 and 31st of December 2010, were evaluated on nine QI: three process indicators for colon cancer, three process indicators for rectal cancer and three outcome indicators. Consistency between all process indicators was assessed, and correlations between all process and outcome indicators were evaluated for colon and rectal cancer care separately. ResultsHospital performance on the nine QI ranged widely. There was little consistency between the process indicators in assessing hospital performance. Most evaluated process indicators for colorectal cancer care did not correlate with each other, but were associated with better hospital specific patient outcomes. ConclusionQI on colorectal cancer care do provide complementary information. Individual QI are not suitable as a surrogate measure for the quality of colorectal cancer care. More comprehensive measures are needed for true assessment of hospital performance. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013; 108:465-471. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.