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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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