Developing decision support tools incorporating personalised predictions of likely visual benefit versus harm for cataract surgery:research programme

Background Surgery for established cataract is highly cost-effective and uncontroversial, yet uncertainty remains for individuals about when to proceed and when to delay surgery during the earlier stages of cataract. Objective We aimed to improve decision-making for cataract surgery through the development of evidence-based clinical tools that provide general information and personalised risk/benefit information. Design We used a mixed methodology consisting of four work packages. Work package 1 involved the development and psychometric validation of a brief, patient self-reported measure of visual difficulty from cataract and its relief from surgery, named Cataract Patient-Reported Outcome Measure, five items (Cat-PROM5). Work package 2 involved the review and refinement of risk models for adverse surgical events (posterior capsule rupture and visual acuity loss related to cataract surgery). Work package 3 involved the development of prediction models for the Cat-PROM5-based self-reported outcomes from a cohort study of 1500 patients; assessment of the validity of preference-based health economic indices for cataract surgery and the calibration of these to Cat-PROM5; assessment of patients’ and health-care professionals’ views on risk–benefit presentation formats, the perceived usefulness of Cat-PROM5, the value of personalised risk–benefit information, high-value information items and shared decision-making; development of cataract decision aid frequently asked questions, incorporation of personalised estimates of risks and benefits; and development of a cataract decision quality measure to assess the quality of decision-making. Work package 4 involved a mixed-methods feasibility study for a fully powered randomised controlled trial of the use of the cataract decision aid and a qualitative study of discordant or mismatching perceptions of outcome between patients and health-care professionals. Setting Four English NHS recruitment centres were involved: Bristol (lead centre), Brighton, Gloucestershire and Torbay. Multicentre NHS cataract surgery data were obtained from the National Ophthalmology Database. Participants Work package 1 – participants (n = 822) were from all four centres. Work package 2 – electronic medical record data were taken from the National Ophthalmology Database (final set > 1M operations). Work package 3 – cohort study participants were from Bristol (n = 1200) and Gloucestershire (n = 300); qualitative and development work was undertaken with patients and health-care professionals from all four centres. Work package 4 – Bristol, Brighton and Torbay participated in the recruitment of patients (n = 42) for the feasibility trial and recruitment of health-care professionals for the qualitative elements. Interventions For the feasibility trial, the intervention was the use of the cataract decision aid, incorporating frequently asked questions and personalised estimations of both adverse outcomes and self-reported benefit. Main outcome measures There was a range of quantitative and qualitative outcome measures: questionnaire psychometric performance metrics, risk indicators of adverse surgical events and visual outcome, predictors of self-reported outcome following cataract surgery, patient and health-care practitioner views, health economic calibration measures and randomised controlled trial feasibility measures. Data sources The data sources were patient self-reported questionnaire responses, study clinical data collection forms, recorded interviews with patients and health-care professionals, and anonymised National Ophthalmology Database data. Results Work package 1 – Cat-PROM5 was developed and validated with excellent to good psychometric properties (Rasch reliability 0.9, intraclass correlation repeatability 0.9, unidimensionality with residual eigenvalues ≤ 1.5) and excellent responsiveness to surgical intervention (Cohen delta –1.45). Work package 2 – earlier risk models for posterior capsule rupture and visual acuity loss were broadly affirmed (C-statistic for posterior capsule rupture 0.64; visual acuity loss 0.71). Work package 3 – the Cat-PROM5-based self-reported outcome regression models were derived based on 1181 participants with complete data (R2 ≈ 30% for each). Of the four preference-based health economic indices assessed, two demonstrated reasonable performance. Cat-PROM5 was successfully calibrated to health economic indices; adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models offered good to excellent fit (root-mean-square error 0.10–0.16). The personalised quantitative risk information was generally perceived as beneficial. A cataract decision aid and cataract decision quality measure were successfully developed based on the views of patients and health-care professionals. Work package 4 – data completeness was good for the feasibility study primary and secondary variables both before and after intervention/surgery (data completeness range 100–88%). Considering ability to recruit, the sample size required, instrumentation and availability of necessary health economic data, a fully powered randomised controlled trial (patients, n = 800, effect size 0.2 standard deviations, power 80%; p = 0.05) of the cataract decision aid would be feasible following psychometric refinement of the primary outcome (the cataract decision quality measure). The cataract decision aid was generally well-received by patients and health-care professionals, with cautions raised regarding perceived time and workload barriers. Discordant outcomes mostly related to patient dissatisfaction, with no clinical problem found. Limitations The National Ophthalmology Database data are expected to include some errors (mitigated by large multicentre data aggregations). The feasibility randomised controlled trial primary outcome (the cataract decision quality measure) displayed psychometric imperfections requiring refinement. The clinical occurrence of discordant outcomes is uncommon and the study team experienced difficulty identifying patients in this situation. Future work Future work could include regular review of the risk models for adverse outcomes to ensure currency, and the technical precision of complex-numbers analysis of refractive outcome to invite opportunities to improve post-operative spectacle-free vision. In addition, a fully powered randomised controlled trial of the cataract decision aid would be feasible, following psychometric refinement of the primary outcome (the cataract decision quality measure); this would clarify its potential role in routine service delivery. Conclusions In this research programme, evidence-based clinical tools have been successfully developed to improve pre-operative decision-making in cataract surgery. These include a psychometrically robust, patient-reported outcome measure (Cat-PROM5); prediction models for patient self-reported outcomes using Cat-PROM5; prediction models for clinically adverse surgical events and adverse visual acuity outcomes; and a cataract decision aid with relevant general information and personalised risk/benefit predictions. In addition, the successful mapping of Cat-PROM5 to existing health economic indices was achieved and the performances of indices were assessed in patients undergoing cataract surgery. A future full-powered randomised controlled trial of the cataract decision aid would be feasible (patients, n = 800, effect size 0.2 standard deviations, power 80%; p = 0.05). Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11309852. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy in patients with oligometastatic cancers:a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly being used to treat oligometastatic cancers, but high-level evidence to provide a basis for policy making is scarce. Additional evidence from a real-world setting is required. We present the results of a national study of patients with extracranial oligometastases undergoing SABR, representing the largest dataset, to our knowledge, on outcomes in this population so far. METHODS: In 2015, National Health Service (NHS) England launched a Commissioning through Evaluation scheme that funded a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational, evaluation study of patients with solid cancer and extracranial oligometastases treated with SABR. Prescribed doses ranged from 24-60 Gy administered in three to eight fractions. The study was done at 17 NHS radiotherapy centres in England. Patients were eligible for the scheme if aged 18 years or older with confirmed primary carcinoma (excluding haematological malignancies), one to three extracranial metastatic lesions, a disease-free interval from primary tumour development to metastases of longer than 6 months (with the exception of synchronous colorectal liver metastases), a WHO performance status of 2 or lower, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. The primary outcome was overall survival at 1 year and 2 years from the start of SABR treatment. The study is now completed. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2015, and Jan 30, 2019, 1422 patients were recruited from 17 hospitals in England. The median age of the patients was 69 years (IQR 62-76), and the most common primary tumour was prostate cancer (406 [28·6%] patients). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 6-23). Overall survival was 92·3% (95% CI 90·5-93·9) at 1 year and 79·2% (76·0-82·1) at 2 years. The most common grade 3 adverse event was fatigue (28 [2·0%] of 1422 patients) and the most common serious (grade 4) event was increased liver enzymes (nine [0·6%]). Notreatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with extracranial oligometastatic cancer, use of SABR was associated with high overall survival and low toxicity. 'The study findings complement existing evidence from a randomised, phase 2 trial, and represent high-level, real-world evidence supporting the use of SABR in this patient cohort, with a phase 3 randomised, controlled trial to confirm these findings underway. Based on the selection criteria in this study, SABR was commissioned by NHS England in March, 2020, as a treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. FUNDING: NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation scheme

Codesign and refinement of an optimised antenatal education session to better inform women and prepare them for labour and birth

Objective Our objective was to codesign, implement, evaluate acceptability and refine an optimised antenatal education session to improve birth preparedness.Design There were four distinct phases: codesign (focus groups and codesign workshops with parents and staff); implementation of intervention; evaluation (interviews, questionnaires, structured feedback forms) and systematic refinement.Setting The study was set in a single maternity unit with approximately 5500 births annually.Participants Postnatal and antenatal women/birthing people and birth partners were invited to participate in the intervention, and midwives were invited to deliver it. Both groups participated in feedback.Outcome measuresWe report on whether the optimised session is deliverable, acceptable, meets the needs of women/birthing people and partners, and explain how the intervention was refined with input from parents, clinicians and researchers.Results The codesign was undertaken by 35 women, partners and clinicians. Five midwives were trained and delivered 19 antenatal education (ACE) sessions to 142 women and 94 partners. 121 women and 33 birth partners completed the feedback questionnaire. Women/birthing people (79%) and birth partners (82%) felt more prepared after the class with most participants finding the content very helpful or helpful. Women/birthing people perceived classes were more useful and engaging than their partners. Interviews with 21 parents, a midwife focus group and a structured feedback form resulted in 38 recommended changes: 22 by parents, 5 by midwives and 11 by both. Suggested changes have been incorporated in the training resources to achieve an optimised intervention.Conclusions Engaging stakeholders (women and staff) in codesigning an evidence-informed curriculum resulted in an antenatal class designed to improve preparedness for birth, including assisted birth, that is acceptable to women and their birthing partners, and has been refined to address feedback and is deliverable within National Health Service resource constraints. A nationally mandated antenatal education curriculum is needed to ensure parents receive high-quality antenatal education that targets birth preparedness