Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Assurance and Improvement in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: From Clinical Trials to National Healthcare Initiatives

  • Head and Neck Cancer (L Licitra, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

It is without question in the best interest of our patients, if we can identify ways to improve the quality of care we deliver to them. Great progress has been made within the last 25 years in terms of development and implementation of quality-assurance (QA) platforms and quality improvement programs for surgery in general, and within this context for head and neck surgery. As of now, we have successfully identified process indicators that impact outcome of our patients and the quality of care we deliver as surgeons. We have developed risk calculators to determine the risk for complications of individual surgical patients. We have created perioperative guidelines for complex head and neck procedures. We have in Europe and North America created audit registries that can gather and analyze data from institutions across the world to better understand which processes need change to obtain good outcomes and improve quality of care. QA platforms can be tested within the clearly defined environment of prospective clinical trials. If positive, such programs could be rolled out within national healthcare systems, if feasible. Testing quality programs in clinical trials could be a versatile tool to help head neck cancer patients benefit directly from such initiatives on a global level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest ,publish recently, have been highlighted as • Of importance •• Of major importace

  1. Ko CY, Paruch JL, Hoyt DB. Achieving high-quality surgical care: observations from the American College of Surgeons Quality of Care Programs. Ann Surg. 2015;261(2):240. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1966;44(3):Suppl:166–206.

  3. Chung KC, Rohrich RJ. Measuring quality of surgical care: is it attainable? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(2):741–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181958ee2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. • Eskander A, Merdad M, Irish JC, Hall SF, Groome PA, Freeman JL, et al. Volume-outcome associations in head and neck cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2014;36(12):1820–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23498. Important meta-analysis on process indicators.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkmeyer JD, Shahian DM, Dimick JB, Finlayson SR, Flum DR, Ko CY, et al. Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(5):777–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.07.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cannady SB, Hatten KM, Bur AM, Brant J, Fischer JP, Newman JG, et al. Use of free tissue transfer in head and neck cancer surgery and risk of overall and serious complication(s): an American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project analysis of free tissue transfer to the head and neck. Head Neck. 2017;39(4):702–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.24669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, Zhou L, Kmiecik TE, Ko CY, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(5):833–42.e1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.385. Original publication on the NSQIP risk calculator.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Vosler PS, Orsini M, Enepekides DJ, Higgins KM. Predicting complications of major head and neck oncological surgery: an evaluation of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;47(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-018-0269-8.

  9. Cohen AM, Winchester DP, Sylvester J. The Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons: restructuring to meet the demand for quality cancer care and cancer data. J Surg Oncol. 2002;81(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.10150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen AY. Quality initiatives in head and neck cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2010;12(2):109–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-010-0083-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones RS, Brown C, Opelka F. Surgeon compensation: “Pay for performance,” the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the surgical care improvement program, and other considerations. Surgery. 2005;138(5):829–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Therasse P, De Mulder PH. Quality assurance in medical oncology within the EORTC. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. EurJ Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2002;38(Suppl 4):S152–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Breugom AJ, Boelens PG, van den Broek CB, Cervantes A, Van Cutsem E, Schmoll HJ, et al. Quality assurance in the treatment of colorectal cancer: the EURECCA initiative. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(8):1485–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu039.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Multidisciplinary quality assurance and control in oncological trials: Perspectives from European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2017;86:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.039.

  15. •• Dort JC, Farwell DG, Findlay M, Huber GF, Kerr P, Shea-Budgell MA, et al. Optimal perioperative care in major head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction: a consensus review and recommendations from the enhanced recovery after surgery society. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143(3):292–303. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.2981. Guidelines from ERAS on perioperative free-flap management.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haughey BH, Hinni ML, Salassa JR, Hayden RE, Grant DG, Rich JT, et al. Transoral laser microsurgery as primary treatment for advanced-stage oropharyngeal cancer: a United States multicenter study. Head Neck. 2011;33(12):1683–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.21669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moore EJ, Olsen KD, Kasperbauer JL. Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of feasibility and functional outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(11):2156–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weinstein GS, O'Malley BW, Jr., Cohen MA, Quon H. Transoral robotic surgery for advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136(11):1079–1085. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2010.191.

  19. White HN, Moore EJ, Rosenthal EL, Carroll WR, Olsen KD, Desmond RA, et al. Transoral robotic-assisted surgery for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: one- and 2-year survival analysis. Arch Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2010;136(12):1248–52. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2010.216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Divi V, Chen MM, Nussenbaum B, Rhoads KF, Sirjani DB, Holsinger FC, et al. Lymph node count from neck dissection predicts mortality in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3892–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.67.3863. Rational for the resection of 18+ lymphnodes during a neck dissection.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Peters LJ, O'Sullivan B, Giralt J, Fitzgerald TJ, Trotti A, Bernier J, et al. Critical impact of radiotherapy protocol compliance and quality in the treatment of advanced head and neck cancer: results from TROG 02.02. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(18):2996–3001. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.27.4498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the EORTC HQ and the members of the EORTC QAC for their help and input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’Oto-rhino-laryngologie – Chirurgie cervico-faciale, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Université de Lausanne (UNIL), Rue du Bugnon 21, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Christian Simon MD

  2. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Avenue Emmanuel Mounier 83, 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    Carmela Caballero MD

Authors
  1. Christian Simon MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmela Caballero MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Simon MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Christian Simon and Carmela Caballero declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors..

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Head and Neck Cancer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Simon, C., Caballero, C. Quality Assurance and Improvement in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery: From Clinical Trials to National Healthcare Initiatives. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 19, 34 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-018-0552-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-018-0552-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation