Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduction/Background ESGO aims to improve and harmonize the care of patients with gynaecologic cancers by defining quality indicators (QI) and encouraging their implementation via ESGO accreditations processes. Methodology Two gynecologic oncologic centers of similar volume coming from similar political and health-care systems were compared in fulfilment of ESGO QI in endometrial cancer management (Maribor, Slovenia – MB and Rijeka, Croatia - RI). MB has been ESGO accredited center in training since 2014; RI is motivated to apply for the same accreditation. Both centers fulfilled ESGO excel sheet with available data for years 2020, 2021 and 2022. The primary outcome was to assess compliance to ESGO QI for both centers. The secondary outcomes were to assess the availability of data and prepare future recommendations. Results The analysis followed published ESGO QI. MB center fulfilled 24 out of 26 QI (92.3%). RI center fulfilled 18 out of 26 QI (69.2%). In both centers 3 QI were not assessed due to lack of available data. Both centers did not reach QI13 (performing omentectomy in serous, carcinosarcoma and undifferentiated carcinoma) and QI16 (number of SLN biopsies per surgeon per year; 13 in MB and 6 in RI, target>20). RI center did not reach QI2 (number of primary surgeries per year), QI3 (percent of surgeries performed by gynecologic oncologist), QI5 (participating in ongoing prospective trials), QI20 (percent of bilateral SLN mapping), QI23 (POLE determination) and QI25 (structured surgical report). Both centers could improve prospective databases to have the possibility of automatic calculation of published ESGO QI and should further encourage national centralisation of care. Conclusion ESGO accreditation in training may be associated also with different compliance to ESGO QI in EC management and may therefore positively stimulate improvement of gynaecologic oncologic patients care in centres that are motivated to apply for ESGO accreditation. Disclosures No disclousers.
Pakiž et al. (Fri,) studied this question.