Development of a core information set for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study

Objective ‘Core information sets’ (CISs) represent baseline information, agreed by patients and professionals, to stimulate individualised patient-centred discussions. This study developed a CIS for use before colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Design Three phase consensus study: (1) Systematic literature reviews and patient interviews to identify potential information of importance to patients, (2) UK national Delphi survey of patients and professionals to rate the importance of the information, (3) international consensus meeting to agree on the final CIS. Setting UK CRC centres. Participants Purposive sampling was conducted to ensure CRC centre representation based upon geographical region and caseload volume. Responses were received from 63/81 (78%) centres (90 professionals). Adult patients who had undergone CRC surgery were eligible, and purposive sampling was conducted to ensure representation based on age, sex and cancer location (rectum, left and right colon). Responses were received from 97/267 (35%) patients with a wide age range (29–87), equal sex ratio and cancer location. Attendees of the international Tripartite Colorectal Conference were eligible for the consensus meeting. Outcomes Phase 1: Information of potential importance to patients was extracted verbatim and operationalised into a Delphi questionnaire. Phase 2: Patients and professionals rated the importance information on a 9-point Likert scale, and resurveyed following group feedback. Information rated of low importance were discarded using predefined criteria. Phase 3: A modified nominal group technique was used to gain final consensus in separate consensus meetings with patients and professionals. Results Data sources identified 1216 pieces of information that informed a 98-item questionnaire. Analysis led to 50 and 23 information domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. The final CIS included 11 concepts including specific surgical complications, short and long-term survival, disease recurrence, stoma and quality of life issues. Conclusions This study has established a CIS for professionals to discuss with patients before CRC surgery

Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals

Background: Trials are robust sources of data for clinical practice, however, trial outcomes may not reflect what is important to communicate for decision making. The study compared clinicians’ views of outcomes to include in a core outcome set for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, with what clinicians considered important information for clinical practice (core information). Methods: Potential outcomes/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into 6 categories, and used to design a questionnaire survey that asked surgeons and nurses from a sample of CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain as an outcome or as information on a 9-point Likert scale. Respondents were re-surveyed (round 2) following group feedback (Delphi methods). Comparisons were made by calculating the difference in mean scores between the outcomes and information domains, and paired t-tests were used to explore the difference between mean scores of the 6 outcome/information categories. Results: Data sources identified 1216 outcomes/information of CRC surgery that informed a 94 item questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63/81 (78%) of centers. Clinicians rated 76/94 (84%) domains of higher importance to measure in trials than to information to communicate to patients in Round 1. This was reduced to 24/47 (51%) in Round 2. The greatest difference was evident in domains about survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than important piece of information for decision-making (mean difference 2.3, 95% CI 1.9-2.8, p<0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (mean difference 0.18, 95% CI -0.1-0.4, p=0.2 and 0.2, 95% CI -0.1-0.5, p=0.2 respectively). Conclusions: Whilst clinicians want to measure key outcomes in trials, they rate these as less important to communicate in decision-making with patients. This discrepancy needs to be explored and addressed to maximize the impact of trials on clinical practice

Synthesis and summary of patient-reported outcome measures to inform the development of a core outcome set in colorectal cancer surgery

AIM: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are standard measures in the assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, but the range and complexity of available PROMs may be hindering the synthesis of evidence. This systematic review aimed to: (i) summarize PROMs in studies of CRC surgery and (ii) categorize PRO content to inform the future development of an agreed minimum 'core' outcome set to be measured in all trials. METHOD: All PROMs were identified from a systematic review of prospective CRC surgical studies. The type and frequency of PROMs in each study were summarized, and the number of items documented. All items were extracted and independently categorized by content by two researchers into 'health domains', and discrepancies were discussed with a patient and expert. Domain popularity and the distribution of items were summarized. RESULTS: Fifty-eight different PROMs were identified from the 104 included studies. There were 23 generic, four cancer-specific, 11 disease-specific and 16 symptom-specific questionnaires, and three ad hoc measures. The most frequently used PROM was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (50 studies), and most PROMs (n = 40, 69%) were used in only one study. Detailed examination of the 50 available measures identified 917 items, which were categorized into 51 domains. The domains comprising the most items were 'anxiety' (n = 85, 9.2%), 'fatigue' (n = 67, 7.3%) and 'physical function' (n = 63, 6.9%). No domains were included in all PROMs. CONCLUSION: There is major heterogeneity of PRO measurement and a wide variation in content assessed in the PROMs available for CRC. A core outcome set will improve PRO outcome measurement and reporting in CRC trials

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard “core” set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. Methods and Findings: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). Conclusion: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice

Colorectal cancer health services research study protocol: the CCR-CARESS observational prospective cohort project

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancers are one of the most common forms of malignancy worldwide. But two significant areas of research less studied deserve attention: health services use and development of patient stratification risk tools for these patients. METHODS:DESIGN: a prospective multicenter cohort study with a follow up period of up to 5 years after surgical intervention. Participant centers: 22 hospitals representing six autonomous communities of Spain. Participants/Study population: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer that have undergone surgical intervention and have consented to participate in the study between June 2010 and December 2012. Variables collected include pre-intervention background, sociodemographic parameters, hospital admission records, biological and clinical parameters, treatment information, and outcomes up to 5 years after surgical intervention. Patients completed the following questionnaires prior to surgery and in the follow up period: EuroQol-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 (The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire) and QLQ-CR29 (module for colorectal cancer), the Duke Functional Social Support Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Barthel Index. The main endpoints of the study are mortality, tumor recurrence, major complications, readmissions, and changes in health-related quality of life at 30 days and at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after surgical intervention. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: In relation to the different endpoints, predictive models will be used by means of multivariate logistic models, Cox or linear mixed-effects regression models. Simulation models for the prediction of discrete events in the long term will also be used, and an economic evaluation of different treatment strategies will be performed through the use of generalized linear models. DISCUSSION: The identification of potential risk factors for adverse events may help clinicians in the clinical decision making process. Also, the follow up by 5 years of this large cohort of patients may provide useful information to answer different health services research questions

Core outcome set in surgical oncology: why, what and how to measure

Safety and effectiveness of healthcare innovations must be assessed before entering routine clinical practice. Selection of outcome measures is therefore essential to inform clinical practice and the health-related decision-making process. However, recent studies have demonstrated a largely inconsistent approach to the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in oncology, thus making it difficult to synthesize the results of different research studies. The inconsistencies due to incomparable data available on the effects of interventions could be addressed with the development of agreed standardized sets of outcomes, known as core outcome sets (COS). The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) database, a publicly available internet-based platform that includes published accounts of COS development, reveals that oncology is the most prevalent disease category (16%) among included studies, and surgery is the focus of 8% of all entries. We identified eight studies defining relevant outcome sets in surgical oncology, as mortality/survival measures, adverse events and complications, symptoms, delivery of care and resource use, quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been traditionally neglected by the clinical and performance data records. In an era of personalized medicine and patient-centered policy making, it is instead of paramount importance to include PROs in COS