Quality Control Indicators for Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor: Results from an Embedded Belgian Multicenter Prospective Registry

Abstract

Background: Quality control indicators (QCIs) can be used to objectively evaluate guideline adherence and benchmark quality among urologists and centers.

Objective: To assess six QCIs for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) using a prospective registry of transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) procedures.

Design, setting, and participants: Clinical data for TURBT cases were prospectively collected using electronic case report forms (eCRFs) embedded in the electronic medical record in three centers during 2013-2017. Pathological data were collected retrospectively. Patients with T0 disease or prior T2 disease were excluded.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We assessed six QCIs: complete resection (CR) status, presence of detrusor muscle (DM), re-TURBT, single instillation of mitomycin C (MMC), start of bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) therapy, and therapy ≤6 wk after diagnosis. We assessed the quality of reporting on QCIs and compliance with QCIs, compared compliance between centers and over time, and investigated correlation between compliance and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results and limitations: Data for 1350 TURBT procedures were collected, of which 1151 were included for 907 unique patients. The distribution of European Association of Urology risk categories after TURBT was 271 with low risk, 464 with intermediate risk, and 416 with high risk. The quality of reporting for two QCIs was suboptimal, at 35% for DM and 51% for BCG. QCI compliance was 97% for CR, 31% for DM, 65% for MMC, 33% for re-TURBT, 39% for BCG, and 88% for therapy ≤6 wk after diagnosis. Compliance with all QCIs differed significantly among centers. Compliance with MMC and re-TURBT increased significantly over time, which could be attributed to one center. Compliance with MMC was significantly correlated with RFS. The main study limitation is the retrospective collection of pathology data.

Conclusions: A TURBT registry consisting of eCRFs to collect pathology and outcome data allowed assessment of QCIs for NMIBC. Our study illustrates the feasibility of this approach in a real-life setting. Differences in performance on QCIs among centers can motivate urologists to improve their day-to-day care for patients with NMIBC, and can thus improve clinical outcomes.

Patient summary: Our study demonstrates that quality control indicators for treatment of bladder cancer not invading the bladder muscle can be evaluated using electronic medical records. We assessed results for 1151 procedures in 907 individual patients to remove bladder tumors between 2013 and 2017 at three centers in Belgium. Compliance with the quality control indicators differed between centers, increased over time, and was correlated with recurrence of disease.

Keywords: Bladder cancer; Non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer; Quality control indicator; Recurrence; Transurethral resection of bladder tumor.