Treatment in Certified Breast Cancer Centers Improves Chances of Survival of Patients with Breast Cancer

Abstract

Introduction

Certified breast cancer centers offer specific quality standards in terms of their structure, diagnostic and treatment approaches with regards to breast surgery, drug-based cancer therapy, radiotherapy, and psychosocial support. Such centers aim to improve treatment outcomes of breast cancer patients. The question investigated here was whether patients with primary breast cancer have a longer overall survival if they are treated in a certified breast cancer center compared to treatment outside these centers.

Methods

We used patient-specific data (demographics, diagnoses, treatments) obtained from data held by mandatory health insurance companies (gesetzliche Krankenversicherung, GKV) and clinical cancer registries (KKR) for the period 2009–2017 as well as hospital characteristics recorded in standardized quality reports. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, we investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals certified as breast cancers centers by the German Cancer Society (DKG) and patients treated in hospitals which had not been certified by the DKG.

Results

The sample population consisted of 143720 (GKV data) and 59780 (KKR data) patients with breast cancer, who were treated in 1010 hospitals across Germany (280 DKG-certified, 730 not DKG-certified). 63.5% (GKV data) and 66.7% (KKR data) of patients, respectively, were treated in DKG-certified breast cancer centers. Cox regression analysis for overall survival which included patient and hospital characteristics found a significantly lower mortality risk for patients treated in DKG-certified breast cancer centers (GKV data: HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.74–0.81; KKR data: HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.85–0.92). This result remained stable even after several sensitivity analyses including stratified estimates for subgroups of patients and hospitals. The effect was even more pronounced for recurrence-free survival (KKR data: HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.74–0.82).

Conclusions

Patients who are treated by an interdisciplinary team in a DKG-certified breast cancer had clear and statistically significantly better survival rates. Certification is therefore an effective means of improving the quality of care, and more patients should be treated in certified breast cancer centers.

Keywords

breast cancer - certification - outcome quality - health care research - health care-related data

Publication History

Received: 14 August 2023

Accepted after revision: 16 November 2023

Article published online:
09 January 2024

• References/Literatur

• 1 Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten im Robert Koch-Institut. Datenbankabfrage mit Schätzung der Inzidenz, Prävalenz und des Überlebens von Krebs in Deutschland auf Basis der epidemiologischen Landeskrebsregisterdaten.
• 2 GEKID, ZfKD. Krebs in Deutschland für 2017/2018. Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut; 2021
• 3 Brucker SY, Schumacher C, Sohn C. et al. Benchmarking the quality of breast cancer care in a nationwide voluntary system: the first five-year results (2003–2007) from Germany as a proof of concept. BMC Cancer 2008; 8: 358
• 4 DKG (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft). Jahresbericht der zertifizierten Brustkrebszentren – Auditjahr 2021/Kennzahlenjahr 2020. Berlin: DKG (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft); 2022
• 5 Beckmann MW, Brucker C, Hanf V. et al. Quality assured health care in certified breast centers and improvement of the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Onkologie 2011; 34: 362-367
• 6 Schrodi S, Tillack A, Niedostatek A. et al. No Survival Benefit for Patients with Treatment in Certified Breast Centers-A Population-based Evaluation of German Cancer Registry Data. Breast J 2015; 21: 490-500
• 7 Heil J, Gondos A, Rauch G. et al. Outcome analysis of patients with primary breast cancer initially treated at a certified academic breast unit. Breast 2012; 21: 303-308
• 8 Schoffer O, Rößler M, Bierbaum V, Bobeth C, Gerken M, Kleihues-van Tol K, Dröge P, Ruhnke T, Hasselberg A, Günster C, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Schmitt J. Ergebnisbericht zum Projekt Wirksamkeit der Versorgung in onkologischen Zentren (WiZen). Berlin: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss – Innovationsausschuss; 2022. Accessed August 11, 2023 at: https://innovationsfonds.g-ba.de/downloads/beschluss-dokumente/268/2022–10–17_WiZen_Ergebnisbericht.pdf
• 9 Shuster JJ. Median follow-up in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 191-192
• 10 Mühlhauser I, Lenz M, Meyer G. Bewertung von komplexen Interventionen: Eine methodische Herausforderung. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2012; 109: 22-23
• 11 Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR. et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36: 8-27
• 12 Balan TA, Putter H. A tutorial on frailty models. Stat Methods Med Res 2020; 29: 3424-3454
• 13 Kreienberg R, Wockel A, Wischnewsky M. Highly significant improvement in guideline adherence, relapse-free and overall survival in breast cancer patients when treated at certified breast cancer centres: An evaluation of 8323 patients. Breast 2018; 40: 54-59
• 14 Beckmann MW, Bani MR, Loehberg CR. et al. Are Certified Breast Centers Cost-Effective?. Breast Care (Basel) 2009; 4: 245-250
• 15 Lux MP, Sell CS, Fasching PA. et al. Time and Resources Needed to Document Patients with Breast Cancer from Primary Diagnosis to Follow-up – Results of a Single-center Study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74: 743-751
• 16 Miller K, Kreis IA, Gannon MR. et al. The association between guideline adherence, age and overall survival among women with non-metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2022; 104: 102353
• 17 Schmitt J, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Bierbaum V. et al. Initial Cancer Treatment in Certified Versus Non-Certified Hospitals-Results of the WiZen Comparative Cohort Study. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2023;
• 18 AGO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie). Leitlinien/Empfehlungen – Empfehlungen gynäkologische Onkologie Kommission Mamma. 2022 Accessed August 11, 2023 at: https://www.ago-online.de/leitlinien-empfehlungen/leitlinien-empfehlungen/kommission-mamma
• 19 Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R. et al. Event-free Survival with Pembrolizumab in Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2022; 386: 556-567
• 20 Beckmann MW, Gitsch G, Emons G. et al. Qualification and education in gynecological oncology. Zentralbl Gynakol 2006; 128: 1-4
• 21 Chioreso C, Del Vecchio N, Schweizer ML. et al. Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Volume and Rectal Cancer Surgery Outcomes in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated Since 2000: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61: 1320-1332
• 22 Wagner S, Bani M, Fasching P. et al. Ist ein Brustzentrum finanzierbar? – Berechnung einzelner Leistungen am Beispiel des Universitäts-Brustzentrums Franken (UBF). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2008; 68: 1178-1183
• 23 Hölterhoff M, Klein R, Anders M, Henkel M, Resnischek C, Riedel W, Vollmer J. Nutzen, Mehraufwand und Finanzierung von Onkologischen Spitzenzentren, Onkologischen Zentren und Organkrebszentren. Berlin/Düsseldorf: Prognos AG; 2017
• 24 Cheng CY, Datzmann T, Hernandez D. et al. Do certified cancer centers provide more cost-effective care? A health economic analysis of colon cancer care in Germany using administrative data. Int J Cancer 2021; 149: 1744-1754
• 25 Comber H, Sharp L, Timmons A. et al. Quality of rectal cancer surgery and its relationship to surgeon and hospital caseload: a population-based study. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: e692-e700
• 26 Morche J, Mathes T, Pieper D. Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 204