An initial benchmark of the quality of the diagnosis and surgical treatment of breast cancer in South Africa

Authors

  • S Nietz Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
  • H Cubasch Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
  • I Buccimazza Department of Surgery, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
  • S Čačala Department of Surgery, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa; Division of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
  • B Phakathi Department of Surgery, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa; Division of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
  • M Joffe Strengthening Oncology Services Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
  • W C C Chen Strengthening Oncology Services Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
  • S Norris SAMRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; School of Human Development and Health, University of Southampton, UK
  • P Ruff Strengthening Oncology Services Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2025.v115i1.2292

Keywords:

breast cancer, Quality of Care, electronic medical record, Low- and middle-income countries

Abstract

Background. Monitoring quality indicators to improve breast cancer care is well established in high-income countries. This is the first evaluation of diagnostic and surgical quality indicators for initial benchmarking of breast cancer care in South Africa (SA).

Objective. To measure the adherence rates to quality indicators among women with breast cancer in SA.

Methods. Ten quality indicators were evaluated for 3 545 breast cancer patients across four SA surgical breast units using a shared electronic patient record system. Data quality and adherence rates with differences between units were determined. The effect of HIV status on adherence was assessed by multivariate Poisson regression analyses.

Results. Our electronic patient record reliably measured most quality indicators. Rates of positive margins (5.7%), overall axillary surgery (95.8%) and appropriate treatment sequencing in locally advanced breast cancer patients (98.4%) consistently reached minimum international standards. Rates of multidisciplinary team discussion (72.2%), radiotherapy (66.7%) and sentinel node biopsy (39.6%) showed wide cross-site variance. Histopathology reporting (62.0%), breast-conserving surgery (19.4%) and number of nodes excised with axillary dissection (47.3%) and sentinel node biopsy (82.7%) were consistently below minimum standards. Unit volumes were achieved consistently in Gauteng Province, but only for some years in KwaZulu-Natal Province; surgeon volumes were achieved across all units. HIV status did not affect adherence levels. Most quality indicators were well measurable, but data quality on reoperations and surgeon volumes was poor.

Conclusion. We evaluated local quality indicators for an initial benchmark, and the most emergent gaps in care are the receipt of radiotherapy and underutilisation of sentinel node biopsy.

References

1. Biganzoli L, Marotti L, Hart CD, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care: An update from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2017;86:59-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.08.017

2. Desch CE, McNiff KK, Schneider EC, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/National

Comprehensive Cancer Network Quality Measures. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(21):3631-3637.

3. Yip CH, Buccimazza I, Hartman M, Deo SVS, Cheung PSY. Improving outcomes in breast cancer for low and middle income countries. World J Surg 2015;39(3):686-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-

014-2859-6

4. O’Neil DS, Chen WC, Ayeni O, et al. Breast cancer care quality in South Africa’s public health system: An evaluation using American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Quality Forum measures. J Glob Oncol 2019;2019(5). https://doi.org/10.1200/jgo.19.00171

5. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Quarterly 2005;83(3 part 2):691-729.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x

6. Hewitt M, Simone JV, eds. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. http://doi.org/10.17226/6467

7. Nietz S, Ruff P, Chen WC, O’Neil DS, Norris SA. Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa. Breast 2020;54(1):187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. breast.2020.09.012

8. Cubasch H, Ruff P, Joffe M, et al. South African breast cancer and HIV outcomes study: Methods and baseline assessment. J Glob Oncol 2017;3(2):114-124. https://doi.org/10.1200/jgo.2015.002675

9. Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tailoring therapies – improving the management of early breast cancer. St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv221

10. Lettvin RJ, Wayal A, McNutt A, Miller RS, Hauser R. Assessment and stratification of high-impact data elements in electronic clinical quality measures: A joint data quality initiative between CancerLinQ and Cancer Treatment Centers of America. JCO Clin Cancer Informatics 2018;2:1-10. https://doi. org/10.1200/cci.17.00139

11. American College of Surgeons. National Accreditation Program For Breast Centers Standards Manual.

https://accreditation.facs.org/accreditationdocuments/NAPBC/Portal Resources/2018NAPBCStandar

dsManual.pdf (accessed 22 December 2023).

12. Rubio IT, Ahmed M, Kovacs T, Marco V. Margins in breast conserving surgery: A practice-changing

process. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016;42(5):631-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.01.019

13. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21(3):704-716. https://doi.org/10.1200/

jco.2013.53.3935

14. McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: Initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg 2009;144(5):.455. https://doi. org/10.1001/archsurg.2009.56

15. Abidi S, Vohra ML, Javed MR, Khan N. Oncoplastic surgery: A suitable alternative to conventional breast conserving surgery in low - middle income countries; a retrospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg 2021:68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102618

16. Biganzoli L, Cardoso F, Beishon M, et al. The requirements of a specialist breast centre. Breast 2020;51;65-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.02.003

17. Prades J, Remue E, van Hoof E, Borras JM. Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes. Health Pol 2019;119(4):464-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. healthpol.2014.09.006

18. HolmesJH,BeinlichJ,BolandMR,etal.Whyistheelectronichealthrecordsochallengingforresearch and clinical care? Method Inform Med 2021;60(1-02):32-48. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1731784

19. Toma A, O’Neil D, Joffe M, et al. Quality of histopathological reporting in breast cancer: Results from four South African Breast Units. J Glob Oncol 2021;7:72-80. https://doi.org/10.1200/go.20.00402

20. Groenewald C, Cubasch H, Mannell A, Ayeni O, Nietz S. Axillary lymph node dissection for patients

with invasive breast cancer at Charlotte Maxeke and Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospitals.

S Afr J Surg 2019;57(4):18-24. https://doi.org/10.17159/2078-5151/2019/v57n4a3007

21. Cao S, Liu X, Cui J, et al. Feasibility and reliability of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with positive axillary nodes at initial diagnosis: An up-to date

meta-analysis of 3,578 patients. Breast 2021;59:256-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.07.015 22. Axelsson CK, Mouridsen HT, Zedeler K. Axillary dissection of level I and II lymph nodes is important in breast cancer classification. Eur J Cancer 1992;28(8-9):1415-1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-

8049(92)90534-9

23. Honeyford K, Expert P, Mendelsohn E, et al. Challenges and recommendations for high quality research using electronic health records. Front Dig Health 2022(4):940330. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fdgth.2022.940330

24. Van Dam PA, Tomatis M, Marotti L, et al. Time trends (2006 - 2015) of quality indicators in EUSOMA- certified breast centres. Eur J Cancer 2017;85:15-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.040

25. Rizzo M, Bumpers H, Okoli J, et al. Improving on national quality indicators of breast cancer care in a large public hospital as a means to decrease disparities for African American women. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18(1):34-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breastdis.2011.06.030

Downloads

Published

2025-02-18

Issue

Section

Research

How to Cite

1.
Nietz S, Cubasch H, Buccimazza I, Čačala S, Phakathi B, Joffe M, et al. An initial benchmark of the quality of the diagnosis and surgical treatment of breast cancer in South Africa. S Afr Med J [Internet]. 2025 Feb. 18 [cited 2025 Feb. 19];115(1):e2292. Available from: https://samajournals.co.za/index.php/samj/article/view/2292