Ronald S. Suh

Establishment of a Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative

PURPOSE We describe the establishment of the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative including our pilot project to improve radiographic staging for men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative comprises more than 60 urologists from 3 group practices. From May through September 2009 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative surgeons collected a uniform set of data (eg prostate specific antigen, clinical stage) for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. After categorizing the cancer of each patient as low, intermediate or high risk, we analyzed baseline use of staging studies across prostate cancer risk strata and Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practice locations. RESULTS Of 215 men with prostate cancer 34%, 42% and 24% had low, intermediate and high risk cancer, respectively. Overall 44% and 43% of patients underwent staging with a bone scan or computerized tomography, respectively, and only 9% and 7% of these studies, respectively, were positive for metastases. Use of staging studies increased across risk strata as bone scans or computerized tomography were performed in 17% and 18%, 41% and 40%, and 88% and 86% of patients, respectively, with low, intermediate and high risk tumors (p<0.01). For men with low risk prostate cancer the use of bone scans and computerized tomography differed significantly across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices (p<0.01) and for this group only 1 bone scan (and no computerized tomography) was positive for metastases. CONCLUSIONS Use of staging evaluations varies by prostate cancer risk strata and across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices. By feeding these data back to surgeons we may be able to improve practice patterns and avoid unnecessary studies in low risk patients. Attainment of this goal would establish the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative as a viable infrastructure for collaborative quality improvement in urology.

Practice Based Collaboration to Improve the Use of Immediate Intravesical Therapy after Resection of Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

PURPOSE Perioperative instillation of intravesical chemotherapy after bladder tumor resection is supported by level I evidence showing a 30% decrease in tumor recurrence. However, studies of administrative data sets show poor use in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS We prospectively evaluated the use of perioperative intravesical chemotherapy in a multipractice quality improvement collaborative. Cases were categorized as ideal for intravesical chemotherapy (1 or 2 papillary tumors, cTa/cT1 and completely resected) and nonideal. The reasons for not administering intravesical chemotherapy in ideal cases were classified as appropriate or modifiable. Before and after comparative feedback and educational interventions we calculated judicious use of intravesical chemotherapy (nonuse in nonideal cases plus use in ideal cases plus appropriate nonuse in ideal cases) and quality improvement potential (use in nonideal cases plus nonuse in ideal cases attributable to modifiable factors). RESULTS We accrued a total of 2,794 cases at the 5 sites in 22 months. The rate of use in ideal cases was 38% before and 34.8% after intervention (p=0.36), while use in nonideal cases decreased from 15% to 12% (p=0.08). Overall, intravesical chemotherapy was used judiciously in 83.0% to 85.7% of cases, while the remaining 14.3% to 17.0% represented quality improvement potential. CONCLUSIONS Judicious use of perioperative intravesical chemotherapy is relatively high in routine practice. Most instances of nonuse represent appropriate clinical judgment. Utilization did not change after quality improvement interventions, suggesting that there may a ceiling effect that makes it difficult to improve care that is high quality at baseline. Moreover, decreasing unnecessary use of an intervention may be easier than encouraging appropriate use of potentially toxic therapy.

Understanding the Use of Immediate Intravesical Chemotherapy for Patients with Bladder Cancer

PURPOSE Despite its established efficacy in reducing recurrence rates for patients with urothelial carcinoma, immediate intravesical chemotherapy is reportedly used infrequently. Accordingly, the Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative implemented a project aimed at understanding and improving the use of immediate intravesical chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Surgeons in 5 Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices prospectively collected clinical and baseline intravesical chemotherapy use data for patients undergoing bladder biopsy or transurethral bladder tumor resection from September 2010 through January 2012. In the second phase of data collection (June 2011 through January 2012) treating surgeons also documented reasons for not administering intravesical chemotherapy. We defined patients with 1 to 2 clinical stage Ta/T1, completely resected, papillary tumor(s) as ideal candidates for treatment with immediate intravesical chemotherapy. For ideal and nonideal patients we examined baseline use of intravesical chemotherapy across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices as well as reasons for not administering therapy among ideal patients. RESULTS Among 1,931 patients 37.2% met criteria as ideal cases for intravesical chemotherapy administration. We observed significant variation in the use of intravesical chemotherapy across Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices for ideal (range 27% to 50%) and nonideal cases (9% to 24%) (p <0.001). Reasons for not treating ideal candidates included lack of confirmation of malignancy (4, 2.8%), uncertainty regarding the benefits of intravesical chemotherapy (28, 19.6%) and logistic factors such as the unavailability of medication (34, 23.8%). CONCLUSIONS Use of immediate intravesical chemotherapy by Urological Surgery Quality Collaborative practices is higher than reported elsewhere but still varies widely, even among ideal candidates. Efforts to optimize use will be aided by disseminating evidence supporting indications and benefits of intravesical chemotherapy, and by addressing local logistic factors that limit access to this evidence-based therapy.