Methods for conducting international Delphi surveys to optimise global participation in core outcome set development: a case study in gastric cancer informed by a comprehensive literature review

Copyright © 2021, The Author(s) Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.Background: Core outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research. Results: Three hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys. Conclusion: Consideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals.This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Doctoral Research Fellowship Grant (DRF-2015-08-023). JMB is partially funded by the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre and the MRC ConDUCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research. PRW was funded by the MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research (Grant ref: MR/K025635/01).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Surgical techniques, open versus minimally invasive gastrectomy after chemotherapy (STOMACH trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to provide important advantages in comparison with open procedures in the treatment of several malignant diseases, such as less perioperative blood loss and faster patient recovery. It also maintains similar results with regard to tumor resection margins and oncological long-term survival. In gastric cancer the role of laparoscopic surgery remains unclear. Current recommended treatment for gastric cancer consists of radical resection of the stomach, with a free margin of 5 to 6 cm from the tumor, combined with a lymphadenectomy. The extent of the lymphadenectomy is considered a marker for radicality of surgery and quality of care. Therefore, it is imperative that a novel surgical technique, such as minimally invasive total gastrectomy, should be non-inferior with regard to radicality of surgery and lymph node yield. The Surgical Techniques, Open versus Minimally invasive gastrectomy After CHemotherapy (STOMACH) study is a randomized, clinical multicenter trial. All adult patients with primary carcinoma of the stomach, in which the tumor is considered surgically resectable (T1-3, N0-1, M0) after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, are eligible for inclusion and randomization. The primary endpoint is quality of oncological resection, measured by radicality of surgery and number of retrieved lymph nodes. The pathologist is blinded towards patient allocation. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) regarding quality of life, postoperative complications and cost-effectiveness. Based on a non-inferiority model for lymph node yield, with an average lymph node yield of 20, a non-inferiority margin of -4 and a 90% power to detect non-inferiority, a total of 168 patients are to be included. The STOMACH trial is a prospective, multicenter, parallel randomized study to define the optimal surgical strategy in patients with proximal or central gastric cancer after neo-adjuvant therapy: the conventional 'open' approach or minimally invasive total gastrectomy. This trial was registered on 28 April 2014 at Clinicaltrials.gov with the identifier NCT0213072

Methods for conducting international Delphi surveys to optimise global participation in core outcome set development: a case study in gastric cancer informed by a comprehensive literature review

Background Core outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice. Methods A comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research. Results Three hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys. Conclusion Consideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals.This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Doctoral Research Fellowship Grant (DRF-2015-08-023). JMB is partially funded by the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre and the MRC ConDUCT-II Hub for Trials Methodology Research. PRW was funded by the MRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research (Grant ref: MR/ K025635/01). This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Healt

Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial

Background: Surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy is regarded the only curative option for gastric cancer. Regarding minimally invasive techniques, mainly Asian studies showed comparable oncological and short-term postoperative outcomes. The incidence of gastric cancer is lower in the Western population and patients often present with more advanced stages of disease. Therefore, the reproducibility of these Asian results in the Western population remains to be investigated. Methods: A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients with an indication for total gastrectomy who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for inclusion and randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG). Primary outcome was oncological safety, measured as the number of resected lymph nodes and radicality. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, recovery and 1-year survival. Results: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 43.4 ± 17.3 in OTG and 41.7 ± 16.1 in MITG (p = 0.612). Forty-eight patients in the OTG group had a R0 resection and 44 patients in the MITG group (p = 0.617). One-year survival was 90.4% in OTG and 85.5% in MITG (p = 0.701). No significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications and recovery. Conclusion: These findings provide evidence that MITG after neoadjuvant therapy is not inferior regarding oncological quality of resection in comparison to OTG in Western patients with resectable gastric cancer. In addition, no differences in postoperative complications and recovery were seen

Correction to: Open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results of a European randomized trial (Gastric Cancer, (2021), 24, 1, (258-271), 10.1007/s10120-020-01109-w)

In the original publication of the article, the co-author name “Christoph Reiβfelder” was incorrectly published

Health related quality of life following open versus minimally invasive total gastrectomy for cancer: Results from a randomized clinical trial

Introduction: Minimally invasive techniques show improved short-term and comparable long-term outcomes compared to open techniques in the treatment of gastric cancer and improved survival has been seen with the implementation of multimodality treatment. Therefore, focus of research has shifted towards optimizing treatment regimens and improving quality of life. Materials and methods: A randomized trial was performed in thirteen hospitals in Europe. Patients were randomized between open total gastrectomy (OTG) or minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study investigated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following OTG or MITG, using the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, modules C30 and STO22. Due to multiple testing a p-value < 0.001 was deemed statistically significant. Results: Between January 2015 and June 2018, 96 patients were included in this trial. Forty-nine patients were randomized to OTG and 47 to MITG. A response compliance of 80% was achieved for all PROMs. The EQ5D overall health score one year after surgery was 85 (60–90) in the open group and 68 (50–83.8) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.049). The median EORTC-QLQ-C30 overall health score one year postoperatively was 83,3 (66,7–83,3) in the open group and 58,3 (35,4–66,7) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.002). This was not statistically significant. Conclusion: No differences were observed between open total gastrectomy and minimally invasive total gastrectomy regarding HRQoL data, collected using the EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-STO22 questionnaires