An audit of standards of radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer

Purpose of investigation: To audit radical hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynecological Cancer Group (EORTC-GCG) guidelines. Materials and Methods: The records of 264 women who had undergone radical hysterectomy were reviewed. Quality was determined by assessing adherence to EORTC-GCG indicators. Results: The five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of this cohort were 95.0% and 96.9%, respectively. Twentyone (7.9%) women experienced recurrent diseases. The rate of five-year survival and pelvic recurrence reached the required standard thresholds. Eleven of the quality assessment criteria were not met including one structural indicator, five outcome indicators, and five process indicators. Conclusion: The survival and rate of pelvic recurrence achieved the EORTC-GCG required standards. There were 11 unachieved standards that merited further detailed exploration and re-audit.

Radical hysterectomy; Cervical cancer; Audit; Quality assurance.

[1] Verleye L., Vergote I., Reed N., Ottevanger P.B.: “Quality assurance for radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: the view of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer—Gynecological Cancer Group (EORTC-GCG)”. Ann Oncol., 2009, 20, 1631.

[2] Landoni F., Maneo A., Colombo A., Placa F., Milani R., Perego P., et al.: “Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer”. Lancet, 1997, 350, 535.

[3] Douek M., Taylor I.: “Good practice and quality assurance in surgical oncology”. Lancet Oncol., 2003, 4, 626.

[4] Berk M., Callaly T., Hyland M.: “The evolution of clinical audit as a tool for quality improvement”. J. Eval. Clin. Pract., 2003, 9, 251.

[5] van Gijn W., Gooiker G.A., Wouters M.W., Post P.N., Tollenaar R.A., van de Velde C.J.: “Volume and outcome in colorectal cancer surgery”. Eur J Surg Oncol., 2010, 36, S55.

[6] Eggink F.A., Mom C.H., Kruitwagen R.F., Reyners A.K., Van Driel W.J., Massuger L.F., et al.: “Improved outcomes due to changes in organization of care for patients with ovarian cancer in the Netherlands”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2016, 141, 524.

[7] Gooiker G.A., van Gijn W., Post P.N., van de Velde C.J., Tollenaar R.A., Wouters M.W.: “A systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Are breast cancer patients better of with a high volume provider?” Eur. J. Surg. Oncol., 2010, 36, S27.

[8] Wouters M.W., Krijnen P., Le Cessie S., Gooiker G.A., Guicherit O.R., Marinelli A.W., et al.: “Volume- or outcome-based referral to improve quality of care for esophageal cancer surgery in The Netherlands”. J. Surg. Oncol., 2009, 99, 481.

[9] Suprasert P., Srisomboon J., Charoenkwan K., Siriaree S., Cheewakriangkrai C., Kietpeerakool C., et al.: “Twelve years experience with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in early stage cervical cancer”. J Obstet Gynaecol., 2010, 30, 294.

[10] Kiran A., Hilton P., Cromwell D.A.: “The risk of ureteric injury associated with hysterectomy: a 10-year retrospective cohort study”. BJOG, 2016, 123, 1184.

[11] Hilton P., Cromwell D.A.: “The risk of vesicovaginal and urethrovaginal fistula after hysterectomy performed in the English National Health Service—a retrospective cohort study examining patterns of care between 2000 and 2008”. BJOG, 2012, 119, 1447.

[12] Charoenkwan K., Kietpeerakool C.: “Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in patients with gynaecological malignancies”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2014, 6, CD007387.

[13] Charoenkwan K., Matovinovic E.: “Early versus delayed oral fluids and food for reducing complications after major abdominal gynaecologic surgery”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2014, CD004508.