Takahiro Higashi

Revision of quality indicators for cervical cancer and trend analysis of existing indicators in Japan

Cervical cancer rates in Japan (16.0/100,000) exceed the global average rate (11.3/100,000, according to the High/Very-High Human Development Index in 2020). This necessitates the evaluation of care quality and the quality indicators (QIs) for cervical cancer that were developed in 2013 to serve this purpose. This study updated these indicators using current evidence and consensus while longitudinally examining trends in practice patterns. The revision involved reviewing existing QIs and patterns of care indicators and incorporating new indicators using the modified Delphi method. Adherence to these indicators was assessed using a linked hospital-based cancer registry-based diagnostic procedure combination database covering approximately 70% of patients with cancer in Japan. The longitudinal trends of the existing indicators were evaluated using the linear probability model. Seven new indicators were added to the existing twelve. Two of the new indicators mainly focused on early-stage surgical intervention, while one focused on advanced-stage bevacizumab combination therapy, with adherence rates of 81.7%, 0.8%, and 45.9%. Longitudinal analyses revealed significant improvements with the use of cisplatin in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced-stage cervical cancer (+1%/year), oral anticancer agents as maintenance therapy after primary treatment for early-stage cervical cancer (-0.8%/year), and hysterectomy for adenocarcinoma in situ in patients above 44 years old (-2%/year). The QIs for cervical cancer in Japan have been revised based on 2022 evidence. The existing and new indicators should be continually evaluated to correspond to the latest knowledge. This will facilitate the standardization and promotion of bottom-up improvements in cervical cancer care.

Quality indicators for endometrial cancer care in Japan

The incidence and mortality rates of endometrial cancer are increasing globally, including in Japan. Quality of cancer care is promoted through guideline adherence. This study aimed to establish quality indicators (QIs) for endometrial cancer and explore the factors contributing to treatment nonadherence. QIs and pattern-of-care indicators (PCIs) were developed using the Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi method. QIs reflect desirable healthcare patterns, whereas PCIs address treatment areas with lacking evidence. Data from the Hospital-Based Cancer Registry and Diagnosis Procedure Combination Survey were used. Patients diagnosed or treated between January 1 and December 31, 2020 were included. The reasons for nonadherence were collected. Logistic regression was used to analyze the factors influencing adherence, including age, body mass index, comorbidities, facilities, and recurrence risk. Of the 35 proposed QI candidates, 8 QIs and 9 PCIs were selected, predominantly focusing on surgical aspects. Adherence rates varied, with peritoneal lavage cytology being the highest (93.1%), and postoperative hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for patients aged <45 years being the lowest (30.9%), when focusing on process indicators. Reasons for nonadherence included patient preference and medical comorbidities as significant factors. Multivariate analysis highlighted age, clinical stage, and Barthel index as significant contributors to nonadherence. We developed QIs to comprehensively assess endometrial cancer treatment. Adherence rates are favorable; however, HRT has a low adherence rate. Factors leading to nonadherence include advanced age and incomplete activities of daily living, particularly in advanced stages.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of hospital treatment volume and survival outcomes in endometrial cancer in Japan

Hospital treatment volume affects survival in patients with endometrial cancer; notably, initial treatment at high-volume centers improves survival outcomes. Our study assessed the effect of hospital treatment volume on cost-effectiveness and survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer in Japan. A decision-analytic model was evaluated using the following variables and their impact on cost-effectiveness: 1) hospital treatment volume (low-, intermediate-, and high-volume centers) and 2) postoperative recurrent risk factors based on pathological findings (high- and intermediate-risk or low-risk). Data were obtained from the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology database, systematic literature searches, and the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was used as a measure of effectiveness. The model was built from a public healthcare perspective and the impact of uncertainty was assessed using sensitivity analyses. A base-case analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at high-volume centers was below a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 with a maximum of ¥3,777,830/4.28 QALY for the high- and intermediate-risk group, and ¥2,316,695/4.57 QALY for the low-risk group. Treatment at the high-volume centers showed better efficiency and cost-effectiveness in both strategies compared to intermediate- or low-volume centers. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model outcome was robust to changes in input values. With the WTP threshold, treatment at high-volume centers remained cost-effective in at least 73.6% and 78.2% of iterations for high- and intermediate-risk, and low-risk groups, respectively. Treatment at high-volume centers is the most cost-effective strategy for guiding treatment centralization in patients with endometrial cancer.