Understand how we got here — and how to move forward.



Cancer Quality Dashboard Metric Selection Tool

To help programs identify quality measures that are both meaningful and feasible to track, we have developed a compendium of cancer quality metrics covering five major tumor sites (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and gynecologic), palliative care, and broader cancer center operations.

You can use this tool to review and select metrics from our compendium, then develop a customized tumor site-specific dashboard that includes definitions and benchmarks supported by clinical literature and endorsed by national quality organizations. After selecting your desired metrics, you can export your customized dashboard for your program's use.

We recommend this tool for cancer center executives, cancer service line planners, quality leaders, analysts, and cancer registrars, but anyone with an Oncology Roundtable membership can access it.

Access the tool

Background on the metrics included in this tool

  Quality metric selection aligns with value mandate

Given the shift to a value‑based health care marketplace focused not just on quality but also cost of care, it is vital that cancer programs pursue a broad quality strategy that aligns with the priorities of their stakeholders.

To help our members develop a comprehensive quality strategy, the metrics included in this tool have the potential to inflect quality across the full cancer care continuum and contribute to a high-value patient care experience.

  Metrics reflect full spectrum of quality priorities

The current set of consensus measures provides a starter set but fails to represent the full picture of cancer care. To that end, the metrics included in this tool span the full care continuum, from risk assessment through diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Because quality priorities vary by diagnosis, we have included tumor site-specific metrics for the most common diagnoses—breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers—which account for over 60% of newly diagnosed cancer patients.

In addition, given the recent focus on the critical role of palliative care in driving high-value cancer care, we have identified a set of measures specific to palliative care and end-of-life planning. Finally, general cancer center metrics are available to be used in setting broader cancer program quality strategy.

  Widely endorsed with a robust set of benchmarks

Although each institution should customize its quality dashboard to the organization's unique goals, resources, and market dynamics, most institutions will also want to report performance to external quality organizations.

To avoid duplication, we have included only metrics that have been endorsed by one or more quality organizations—and have listed the endorsing organization(s) for each metric.

Additionally, to drive quality improvement, cancer programs must be able to benchmark themselves both internally and against their peers. Through an exhaustive search of clinical literature and national benchmarking efforts, we have amassed a set of benchmarks for each quality metric included in the tool, providing in most cases a national average and an ideal performance level.

Prioritize the metrics you track

Cancer programs cannot—and should not—aim to track every metric available. Instead, program leaders should evaluate potential metrics according to the criteria below:


  • Does your clinical staff consider the metric to be important?
  • Does your senior administration consider the metric to be important?
  • Does your metric align with hospital-wide goals?
  • Does the metric align with oncology service line goals?


  • Is the metric calculated by an automated system?
  • If not, are you certain the report data is accurate?
  • Do managers and clinicians trust the data for decision making?

  Collection feasibility

  • Are existing information systems capable of generating reports on the metric?
  • Can staff collect and report the data within a reasonable time frame?
  • Is the cost of measurement acceptable?
  • Can this metric be tracked frequently enough to inform action?


  • Is this metric easily explained to and understood by internal audiences, including physicians, managers, and executives?
  • Can the different constituencies involved come to consensus on the metric definition?
  • Are physicians and staff aware of the importance for tracking the metric?
  • Is the metric easily understood by external audiences, including consumers and payers?

Scientific support

  • Is the metric derived from clinical guidelines of published standards?
  • Do physicians agree that the metric is evidence-based and clinically relevant?
  • Is there consensus in the industry regarding the scientific acceptability of the metric?

Have a Question?


Ask our experts a question on any topic in health care by visiting our member portal, AskAdvisory.