Cargando…
Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to benchmark and compare breast cancer care quality indicators (QIs) between Norway and the Netherlands using federated analytics preventing transfer of patient-level data. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (2017–2018) were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Regist...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10361850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37355527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06986-0 |
_version_ | 1785076299030593536 |
---|---|
author | Hamersma, Dave T. Schreuder, Kay Geleijnse, Gijs Heeg, Erik Cellamare, Matteo Lobbes, Marc B. I. Mureau, Marc A. M. Koppert, Linetta B. Skjerven, Helle Nygård, Jan F. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M. Siesling, Sabine |
author_facet | Hamersma, Dave T. Schreuder, Kay Geleijnse, Gijs Heeg, Erik Cellamare, Matteo Lobbes, Marc B. I. Mureau, Marc A. M. Koppert, Linetta B. Skjerven, Helle Nygård, Jan F. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M. Siesling, Sabine |
author_sort | Hamersma, Dave T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to benchmark and compare breast cancer care quality indicators (QIs) between Norway and the Netherlands using federated analytics preventing transfer of patient-level data. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (2017–2018) were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Cancer Registry of Norway. Five European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) QIs were assessed: two on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), two on surgical approaches, and one on postoperative radiotherapy. The QI outcomes were calculated using ‘Vantage 6’ federated Propensity Score Stratification (PSS). Likelihood of receiving a treatment was expressed in odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: In total, 39,163 patients were included (32,786 from the Netherlands and 6377 from Norway). PSS scores were comparable to the crude outcomes of the QIs. The Netherlands scored higher on the QI ‘proportions of patients preoperatively examined with breast MRI’ [37% vs.17.5%; OR 2.8 (95% CI 2.7–2.9)], the ‘proportions of patients receiving primary systemic therapy examined with breast MRI’ [83.3% vs. 70.8%; OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.3–3.3)], and ‘proportion of patients receiving a single breast operation’ [95.2% vs. 91.5%; OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.4–2.2)]. Country scores for ‘immediate breast reconstruction’ and ‘postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery’ were comparable. The EUSOMA standard was achieved in both countries for 4/5 indicators. CONCLUSION: Both countries achieved high scores on the QIs. Differences were observed in the use of MRI and proportion of patients receiving single surgery. The federated approach supports future possibilities on benchmark QIs without transfer of privacy-sensitive data. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-023-06986-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10361850 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103618502023-07-23 Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics Hamersma, Dave T. Schreuder, Kay Geleijnse, Gijs Heeg, Erik Cellamare, Matteo Lobbes, Marc B. I. Mureau, Marc A. M. Koppert, Linetta B. Skjerven, Helle Nygård, Jan F. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M. Siesling, Sabine Breast Cancer Res Treat Epidemiology PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to benchmark and compare breast cancer care quality indicators (QIs) between Norway and the Netherlands using federated analytics preventing transfer of patient-level data. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (2017–2018) were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Cancer Registry of Norway. Five European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) QIs were assessed: two on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), two on surgical approaches, and one on postoperative radiotherapy. The QI outcomes were calculated using ‘Vantage 6’ federated Propensity Score Stratification (PSS). Likelihood of receiving a treatment was expressed in odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: In total, 39,163 patients were included (32,786 from the Netherlands and 6377 from Norway). PSS scores were comparable to the crude outcomes of the QIs. The Netherlands scored higher on the QI ‘proportions of patients preoperatively examined with breast MRI’ [37% vs.17.5%; OR 2.8 (95% CI 2.7–2.9)], the ‘proportions of patients receiving primary systemic therapy examined with breast MRI’ [83.3% vs. 70.8%; OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.3–3.3)], and ‘proportion of patients receiving a single breast operation’ [95.2% vs. 91.5%; OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.4–2.2)]. Country scores for ‘immediate breast reconstruction’ and ‘postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery’ were comparable. The EUSOMA standard was achieved in both countries for 4/5 indicators. CONCLUSION: Both countries achieved high scores on the QIs. Differences were observed in the use of MRI and proportion of patients receiving single surgery. The federated approach supports future possibilities on benchmark QIs without transfer of privacy-sensitive data. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-023-06986-0. Springer US 2023-06-25 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10361850/ /pubmed/37355527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06986-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Epidemiology Hamersma, Dave T. Schreuder, Kay Geleijnse, Gijs Heeg, Erik Cellamare, Matteo Lobbes, Marc B. I. Mureau, Marc A. M. Koppert, Linetta B. Skjerven, Helle Nygård, Jan F. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M. Siesling, Sabine Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics |
title | Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics |
title_full | Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics |
title_fullStr | Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics |
title_short | Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics |
title_sort | comparing quality of breast cancer care in the netherlands and norway by federated propensity score analytics |
topic | Epidemiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10361850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37355527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06986-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hamersmadavet comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT schreuderkay comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT geleijnsegijs comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT heegerik comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT cellamarematteo comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT lobbesmarcbi comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT mureaumarcam comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT koppertlinettab comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT skjervenhelle comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT nygardjanf comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT groothuisoudshoorncatharinagm comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics AT sieslingsabine comparingqualityofbreastcancercareinthenetherlandsandnorwaybyfederatedpropensityscoreanalytics |