Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality

How Can We Improve the Quality of Cancer Care in the United States?

Published in: Journal of Clinical Oncology, v. 24, no. 4, Feb. 1, 2006, p. 626-634

Posted on on January 01, 2006

by Jennifer Malin, Eric C. Schneider, Arnold M. Epstein, John L. Adams, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Katherine L. Kahn

Read More

Access further information on this document at Journal of Clinical Oncology

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

PURPOSE: In 1999, the National Cancer Policy Board called attention to the quality of cancer care in the United States and recommended establishing a quality monitoring system with the capability of regularly reporting on the quality of care for patients with cancer. METHODS: Using data from a patient survey 4 years after diagnosis and review of medical records, the authors determined the percentage of stage I to III breast cancer and stage II to III colorectal cancer survivors in five metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) across the United States who received recommended care specified by a comprehensive set of explicit quality measures. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred sixty-six (63%) of 3,775 eligible patients responded to the survey, and 85% consented to have their medical records reviewed. Our final analytic sample (n = 1,765) included 47% of the eligible patients. Patients with breast and colorectal cancer received 86% of recommended care (95% CI, 86% to 87%) and 78% of recommended care (95% CI, 77% to 79%), respectively. Adherence to quality measures was less than 85% for 18 of the 36 breast cancer measures, and significant variation across MSAs was observed for seven quality measures. The percent adherence was less than 85% for 14 of the 25 colorectal cancer measures, and one quality measure demonstrated statistically significant variation across the MSAs. CONCLUSION: Initial management of patients with breast and colorectal cancer in the United States seemed consistent with evidence-based practice; however, substantial variation in adherence to some quality measures point to significant opportunities for improvement.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.