Search

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by (1) the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm, (2) the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised, and (3) the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin, and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient's treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for (1) diagnostic procedures, (2) surgical procedures for cancer, and (3) systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management., Methods: The analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach., Results: The interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points., Discussion: Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified., Conclusions: These findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used in cancer care to monitor patients' disease-related symptoms and functional status. However, successful implementation of such instruments is only possible if clinical staff are convinced of the clinical benefits. It is therefore crucial to investigate the attitudes of clinical staff to PROs in routine cancer care., Methods: Semi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with 12 clinicians working in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany who are taking part in an observational study on PROs (five surgeons, two oncologists, one psycho-oncologist, two oncological care nurses, one stoma therapist, and one physician assistant) in order to investigate firstly, how clinicians describe PRO instruments ("wording"); and secondly, the clinicians' general attitude toward PROs. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed., Results: The wording used to describe PROs was not consistent. Statements on attitudes toward PROs were very heterogeneous and were therefore categorized into "(rather) positive" and "(rather) negative." The principal advantages of PROs mentioned by participants included broader, structured knowledge about patients and treatment, as well as relevance for patients. Subcategories for (rather) negative attitudes included statements expressing doubts about the questionnaires and "no need for PROs.", Discussion: The clinicians participating mainly expressed fairly positive attitudes toward PROs. However, they had little knowledge about PROs in general and the interviews therefore mainly reflect their expectations and assumptions about them. These initial impressions may be regarded as providing a basis for future implementation strategies and for training of clinicians on how to use PROs in routine cancer care.

Improvements in health care depend on research involving health-care providers (HCPs) and health-care organizations (HCOs). Existing research suggests that involvement in research studies is still much lower than it could be. This study investigates factors that may impede or facilitate research involvement. A standardized online questionnaire was used to carry out a survey, in 3 countries, of key informants in colorectal cancer centers that hold certification in accordance with the requirements of the German Cancer Society. A total of 184 individuals responded (response rate 65%). The respondents found it difficult to identify studies suitable for their patients (40% agreement), criticized the small overall number of studies available (48%), and found that many studies are not worthwhile financially (56%). Among respondents who were not involved in studies as the principal investigators (PIs), 66% agreed they lacked the research infrastructure needed and 81% that they did not have enough staff. Among respondents who were involved as PIs, only 22% indicated that their hospital management encouraged them to initiate and conduct clinical trials. Eighty-five percent of the respondents agreed that the general population lacks information about the importance of studies. Five recommendations for health policy makers are derived from these findings for ways of increasing the involvement of HCPs and HCOs in research, and in cancer research in particular.

Introduction: Clinical trials and health services research are crucial pillars for improving patient care. This paper examines factors inhibiting and promoting the study activity and the knowledge and use of trial registries (e. g. DRKS, StudyBox) as an opportunity to learn about existing studies., Material and Methods: The coordinators of 274 cancer center sites certified according to the requirements of the German Cancer Society were surveyed using a standardized online questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics to identify associations with characteristics of the sites (e. g. patient volume, ownership, teaching status)., Results: 176 sites participated in the survey (64.2 %). The central obstacle to study participa-tion from the centers' view is the low number of existing studies. General knowledge of the population about studies was considered low. Trial registries are known to almost all respondents, but are rarely used., Discussion: The results of the survey suggest that comprehensive measures are needed to sustainably increase the study activity. These include, for example, better information about studies, for example through appropriate databases, and (industry-independent) research funding. One possible way to sensitize patients for studies could be the comprehensive education of the population about the purpose of studies., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Purpose: In order to improve the quality of treatment for cancer patients the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft) implemented a certification system for oncological care institutions. The certified colorectal cancer centers present the structures, processes and results of their network in the framework of an auditing procedure., Methods: The current benchmarking report by the certified centers reflects the centers' reference results over a period of 3 years. The figures included in the benchmarking report reflect the areas of interdisciplinary collaboration, guideline-compliant treatment, and expertise of the main treatment partners., Results: High percentages were shown for indicators reflecting pretreatment and postoperative case presentations in multidisciplinary team meetings (91.8 % or 98.1 %), psycho-oncologic care (54.8 %) as well as social service counseling (77.1 %). Good quality of the TME rectal specimen and adequate lymph-node retrieval (12 lymph nodes at least) was achieved by 93 % or 96.6 % of the centers. Adjuvant chemotherapy (colon, Union for International Cancer Control [UICC] stage III) or neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (rectum, UICC stages II and III) received 73.7 % or 80 % of relevant patients. Quotas of anastomotic leakage in the colon or rectum were 4.4 % or 7.6 %, whereas postoperative mortality amounted to 2.6 %., Conclusions: The present analysis of the results, together with the centers' statements and the auditors' reports, shows that most of the targets for indicator figures are being better met over the course of time. In addition, however, there is a clear potential for improvement and the centers are verifiably addressing this. A transparent presentation of the quality of care and reflection on and discussion of the results among the treatment partners in the certified network and with the auditors during the certification process may contribute to constant quality improvement in oncological care.

Successful resection of liver metastases increases overall survival and can even be a curative approach in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and isolated liver metastases. Resection of liver metastases has clearly changed the therapy of this group of patients and has become a standard procedure that is being used increasingly more. Accordingly, liver metastasis resection has been included in the German evidence-based guidelines and also in international guidelines on the treatment of CRC. The treatment of colorectal liver metastases requires a multidisciplinary team of experts in the disease, including experienced radiologists, medical oncologists, radiotherapists, pathologists and surgeons. The interdisciplinary approach to the treatment in specialized tumor boards staffed by qualified experts is a prerequisite for successful certification as a colorectal cancer center by the German Cancer Society. Regular audits ensure that these requirements and that defined quality indicators regarding the tumor board and primary and secondary liver metastasis resection, are fulfilled. The certification system of the colorectal cancer centers requires and promotes conditions that allow an optimal and guideline-oriented treatment of colorectal liver metastases both at the level of personnel and infrastructure of a given center. The high primary and secondary resection rates in these centers testify that the multidisciplinary teams are effective. A detailed analysis of the audit reports reveals the close collaboration of all partners within the certified networks. These networks also comprise external cooperation with highly specialized hospitals if and when necessary. However, the annual report of the certificated colorectal cancer centers also demonstrates areas for further improvements in multidisciplinary cooperation.

Colon carcinomas are the most common malignant tumours in the Western world. Important findings about the overall quality of medical care have been reported in multi-centre observational studies. A quality enhancement of therapeutic care can be achieved by an additional increase in diagnostic and therapeutic measures in the interdisciplinary setting. The development of colon cancer centres improves the chance to objectively observe the results of medical care induced by the development of an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral unit that includes a comprehensive medical care for patients. The implementation of the current medical findings based on evidence in clinical routine, the inspection of the usage of guidelines by external specialists as part of an audit and the continuous correction of analysed deficits in the course of treatment guarantee a continuous improvement of service., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)