Core Outcome Set for Actinic Keratosis Clinical Trials

Question What are the most important outcomes to report in clinical trials on actinic keratosis? Findings In this survey study including physician and patient stakeholders (33 in round 1 and 29 in round 2), a consensus was reached regarding a core set of 6 of 137 outcomes and domains of actinic keratosis: complete clearance of actinic keratoses, percentage of actinic keratoses cleared, severity of adverse events, patient perspective on effectiveness, patient-reported future treatment preference, and rate of recurrence. Meaning In studies of treatment of actinic keratosis, the recommended core outcomes should be reported as a minimum to facilitate comparison of results across studies. This survey study assesses the most important outcomes to report in clinical trials on actinic keratosis based on Delphi surveys completed by physician and patient stakeholders. Importance Although various treatments have been found in clinical trials to be effective in treating actinic keratosis (AK), researchers often report different outcomes. Heterogeneous outcome reporting precludes the comparison of results across studies and impedes the synthesis of treatment effectiveness in systematic reviews. Objective To establish an international core outcome set for all clinical studies on AK treatment using systematic literature review and a Delphi consensus process. Evidence Review Survey study with a formal consensus process. The keywords actinic keratosis and treatment were searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library to identify English-language studies investigating AK treatments published between January 1, 1980, and July 13, 2015. Physician and patient stakeholders were nominated to participate in Delphi surveys by the Measurement of Priority Outcome Variables in Dermatologic Surgery Steering Committee members. All participants from the first round were invited to participate in the second round. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled clinical trials on AK treatment were rated via web-based e-Delphi consensus surveys. Stakeholders were asked to assess the relative importance of each outcome in 2 Delphi survey rounds. Outcomes were provisionally included, pending the final consensus conference, if at least 70% of patient or physician stakeholders rated the outcome as critically important in 1 or both Delphi rounds and the outcome received a mean score of 7.5 from either stakeholder group. Data analysis was performed from November 5, 2018, to February 27, 2019. Findings A total of 516 outcomes were identified by reviewing the literature and surveying key stakeholder groups. After deduplication and combination of similar outcomes, 137 of the 516 outcomes were included in the Delphi surveys. Twenty-one physicians and 12 patients participated in round 1 of the eDelphi survey, with 17 physicians (81%) retained and 12 patients (100%) retained in round 2. Of the 137 candidate outcomes, 9 met a priori Delphi consensus criteria, and 6 were included in the final outcomes set after a consensus meeting: complete clearance of AKs, percentage of AKs cleared, severity of adverse events, patient perspective on effectiveness, patient-reported future treatment preference, and recurrence rate. It was recommended that treatment response be assessed at 2 to 4 months and recurrence at 6 to 12 months, with the AK rate of progression to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma reported whenever long-term follow-up was possible. Conclusions and Relevance Consensus was reached regarding a core outcome set for AK trials. Further research may help determine the specific outcome measures used to assess each of these outcomes.12 month embargo; published online: 15 January 2020This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma

Background: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma. This can prevent effective meta-analyses from answering important clinical questions. Objective: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for basal cell carcinoma clinical trials. Methods: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed important (score, 7-9, with 9 being the maximum) by 70% of each stakeholder group. Results: Two hundred thirty-five candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in 2 Delphi rounds. Twenty-seven outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting included complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including cosmetic outcome. Limitations: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English language studies. Conclusion: A core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. The use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians. Keywords: basal cell carcinoma; core; measure; outcome; set; skin cancer

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Microcystic Adnexal Carcinoma: Informed by a Systematic Review

Importance: Microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC) occurs primarily in older adults of white race/ethnicity on sun-exposed skin of the head and neck. There are no formal guiding principles based on expert review of the evidence to assist clinicians in providing the highest-quality care for patients. Objective: To develop recommendations for the care of adults with MAC. Evidence Review: A systematic review of the literature (1990 to June 2018) was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The keywords searched were microcystic adnexal carcinoma, sclerosing sweat gland carcinoma, sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma, syringomatous carcinoma, malignant syringoma, sweat gland carcinoma with syringomatous features, locally aggressive adnexal carcinoma, and combined adnexal tumor. A multidisciplinary expert committee critically evaluated the literature to create recommendations for clinical practice. Statistical analysis was used to estimate optimal surgical margins. Findings: In total, 55 studies met our inclusion criteria. The mean age of 1968 patients across the studies was 61.8 years; 54.1% were women. Recommendations were generated for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of MAC. There are 5 key findings of the expert committee based on the available evidence: (1) A suspect skin lesion requires a deep biopsy that includes subcutis. (2) MAC confined to the skin is best treated by surgery that examines the surrounding and deep edges of the tissue removed (Mohs micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment). (3) Radiotherapy can be considered as an adjuvant for MAC at high risk for recurrence, surgically unresectable tumors, or patients who cannot have surgery for medical reasons. (4) Patients should be seen by a physician familiar with MAC every 6 to 12 months for the first 5 years after treatment. Patient education on photoprotection, periodic skin self-examination, postoperative healing, and the possible normal changes in local sensation (eg, initial hyperalgesia) should be considered. (5) There is limited evidence to guide the treatment of metastasis in MAC due to its rarity. Limitations of our findings are that the medical literature on MAC comprises only retrospective reviews and descriptions of individual patients and there are no controlled studies to guide management. Conclusions and Relevance: The presented clinical practice guidelines provide an outline for the diagnosis and management of MAC. Future efforts using multi-institutional registries may improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in patients with lymph node or nerve involvement, the role of radiotherapy, and the treatment of metastatic MAC with drug therapy