ArticleBreast care (Basel, Switzerland)2025
The Challenge of Calculating EUSOMA Quality Indicators with Administrative Data: A Pilot Study in Belgium.
Article in Breast care (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The study aimed to assess the feasibility of calculating the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) quality indicators (QIs) using Belgian Cancer Registry data coupled to administrative health data and to provide national results. Methods: Women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer (IBC) in 2014-2018 were selected from the cancer registry. Fourteen EUSOMA QIs were chosen to assess the quality of care. Results: Overall, 46,035 patients with IBC and 3,973 patients with DCIS were included. Most QIs had to be rephrased so that they could be calculated with the available data. None of the selected QIs on systemic treatment could be calculated due to a lack of reliable receptor status information. For some Qis, there is ample room for improvement in Belgian clinical practice: cTNM stage reporting, multidisciplinary team meetings, sentinel lymph node biopsy only in IBC with clinically negative lymph nodes. The result was 1-5% lower than the target for mammography and breast ultrasound, pTNM reporting, start of treatment, single breast surgery in DCIS, and no axillary clearance in DCIS. For histological or cytological assessment, receptor status assessment, start of radiotherapy, and single breast surgery in IBC, the results were at or above the target. Conclusion: Several EUSOMA QIs can be calculated with routinely collected data, while for several important aspects of care additional data collection is indicated so that its quality can be assessed. The validity of the obtained results depends on the reporting accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.