Aim: The majority of clinicians, radiologists and pathologists have limited experience with soft tissue sarcomas. In 2004, national guidelines were established in The Netherlands to improve the quality of diagnosis and treatment of these rare tumours. This study evaluates the compliance with the guidelines over time.
Patients: Population-based series of 119 operated patients with a soft tissue sarcoma (STS) diagnosed in 1998-1999 (79 before implementation of new guidelines) and in 2006 (40 after implementation).
Methods: Coded information regarding patient and tumour characteristics as well as (the results of) pathology review was collected from the medical patient file by two experienced data-managers.
Results: Diagnostic imaging of the tumour was performed according to the guidelines in 75-100% depending on the site of the tumour (abdominal versus non-abdominal) as well as the time of diagnosis. Adherence to the guidelines with respect to invasive diagnostic procedures in patients with non-abdominal STS improved over time. A pre-operative histological diagnosis was obtained in 42% of the patients in 1998-1999 and in 72% of the patients in 2006 (p<0.001). The guidelines for reporting on pathology were increasingly adhered to. In 2006, (nearly) all pathology reports mentioned tumour size, morphology, tumour grade, resection margins and radicality. This represents a major improvement compared to the pathology reports in 1998-1999, where these aspects were not mentioned in 14-40% of the cases. The proportion of prospective pathology reviews by (a member of) the expert panel increased from 60% in 1998-1999 to 90% in 2006 (p=0.001).
Discussion: The compliance with the guidelines has been optimised by the increased attention to this group of patients. Most important factors have been the reporting of the results of the first evaluation and (discussions about) the centralisation of treatment. Further improvements could be reached by the prospective web based registry monitoring logistic aspects as well as parameters useful for the evaluation of the quality of care.