Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHamersma, Dave T.
dc.contributor.authorSchreuder, Kay
dc.contributor.authorGeleijnse, Gijs
dc.contributor.authorHeeg, Erik
dc.contributor.authorCellamare, Matteo
dc.contributor.authorLobbes, Marc B. I.
dc.contributor.authorMureau, Marc A. M.
dc.contributor.authorKoppert, Linetta B.
dc.contributor.authorSkjerven, Helle
dc.contributor.authorNygård, Jan Franz
dc.contributor.authorGroothuis-Oudshoorn, Catharina G. M.
dc.contributor.authorSiesling, Sabine
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-23T09:04:41Z
dc.date.available2023-08-23T09:04:41Z
dc.date.issued2023-06-05
dc.description.abstractPurpose - 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.<p> <p>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).<p> <p>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.<p> <p>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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationHamersma, Schreuder, Geleijnse, Heeg, Cellamare, Lobbes, Mureau, Koppert, Skjerven, Nygård, Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Siesling. Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2023;201(2):247-256en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2167124
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10549-023-06986-0
dc.identifier.issn0167-6806
dc.identifier.issn1573-7217
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/30212
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Natureen_US
dc.relation.journalBreast Cancer Research and Treatment
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2023 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleComparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analyticsen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Med mindre det står noe annet, er denne innførselens lisens beskrevet som Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)