Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes in oncologY (EPIPHANY): A systematic review protocol

Introduction While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations. Methods and analysis An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided. Ethics and dissemination Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research. Prospero registration number CRD42018099160

Stigma of Palliative Care among Patients with Advanced Cancer and Their Caregivers on Early Palliative Care

Simple Summary Early palliative care represents a successful model of care for advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. Yet, early palliative care provision remains confined to the last weeks of life. Among the possible reasons, the stigma associated with the name "palliative care" seems to have a prominent role. The present study aimed to investigate the perception of palliative care that a sample of 78 patients and 110 caregivers had before their referral to the early palliative care service. The results suggest on which levels it is necessary to intervene to overcome the stigma. From a policy perspective, it is clear that broad education is needed to ensure a more widespread understanding of the essence of anticipated palliative care. The early referral to palliative care (PC) represents a successful value-based model with proven benefits regarding the quality of life and clinical outcomes for advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. Yet, its provision remains typically confined to the last weeks of life as per the historical, late PC model. The stigma according to which PC represents end-of-life care has been identified as the root of the problem. To explore the presence and effects of the stigma in a clinical context, we surveyed 78 patients and 110 caregivers (mean age: 71.7 and 60.7, respectively) on early PC to study what their perception of PC was before their direct experience. The responses were analyzed through a qualitative descriptive approach. The participants explicitly mentioned a lack of knowledge about PC (53% of the sample), which they identified also among physicians and the population (13%); an identification of PC with the late PC model (53%); and a detrimental reaction to the proposal of an early PC referral (83%). However, the participants explicitly mentioned that a direct experience of early PC allowed for an acquired awareness of early PC meaning and benefits (52%), as well as a comprehension of its differences with late PC (34%); the regret for the delayed referral (8%); the perception of the word "palliative" as a barrier (21%); and the belief that early PC should be part of the cancer routine practice (25%). A comprehensive multi-level intervention is necessary for a widespread understanding of the essence of anticipated PC

Overcoming barriers to the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials : The PROMOTION Registry

Acknowledgments We acknowledge the essential contribution of all collaborators of the PROMOTION Registry. This project is funded by a research grant from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group. Also, additional support for the conduct of the study was provided by the Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA). JMB is supported by the MRC ConDuCT Hub for Trials Methodology Research. We also acknowledge Alessandro Perreca for his invaluable contribution in the data management.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Similar efficacy outcomes with peripheral blood stem cell versus bone marrow for autologous stem cell transplantation in acute myeloid leukemia: Long-term follow-up of the EORTC-GIMEMA randomized AML-10 trial

we report here the long-term follow-up of the only prospective randomized trial of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) with peripheral blood stem cells (APBSCT) versus auto-HSCT with bone marrow (ABMT) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients in first remission (CR). we observed that among patients alive and still in CR 5 years after planned auto-HSCT, approximately 10% of the patients died in the following 10 years. This stresses the need for long-term close surveillance of AML patients after auto-HSCT. further, long-term follow-up of the trial confirms that APBSCT was comparable to ABMT in term of disease-free-survival and overall survival

Prospective Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Pediatric Patients with Beta-Thalassemia following Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Although hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has been widely used to treat pediatric patients with beta-thalassemia major, evidence showing whether this treatment improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is lacking. We used child-self and parent-proxy reports to prospectively evaluate HRQoL in 28 children with beta-thalassemia from Middle Eastern countries who underwent allogeneic HSCT in Italy. The PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales were administered to patients and their parents 1 month before and 3, 6, and 18 months after transplantation. Two-year overall survival, thalassemia-free survival, mortality, and rejection were 89.3%, 78.6%, 10.9% and 14.3%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was 36% and 18%, respectively. Physical functioning declined significantly from baseline to 3 months after HSCT (median PedsQL score, 81.3 vs 62.5; P = .02), but then increased significantly up to 18 months after HSCT (median score, 93.7; P = .04). Agreement between child-self and parent-proxy ratings was high. Chronic GVHD was the most significant factor associated with lower HRQoL scores over time ( P = .02). The child-self and parent-proxy reports showed improved HRQoL in the children with beta-thalassemia after HSCT. Overall, our study provides preliminary evidence-based data to further support clinical decision making in this area