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

Influences on pre-hospital delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Colorectal cancer is a major global health problem, with survival varying according to stage at diagnosis. Delayed diagnosis can result from patient, practitioner or hospital delay. This paper reports the results of a review of the factors influencing pre-hospital delay – the time between a patient first noticing a cancer symptom and presenting to primary care or between first presentation and referral to secondary care. A systematic methodology was applied, including extensive searches of the literature published from 1970 to 2003, systematic data extraction, quality assessment and narrative data synthesis. Fifty-four studies were included. Patients' non-recognition of symptom seriousness increased delay, as did symptom denial. Patient delay was greater for rectal than colon cancers and the presence of more serious symptoms, such as pain, reduced delay. There appears to be no relationship between delay and patients' age, sex or socioeconomic status. Initial misdiagnosis, inadequate examination and inaccurate investigations increased practitioner delay. Use of referral guidelines may reduce delay, although evidence is currently limited. No intervention studies were identified. If delayed diagnosis is to be reduced, there must be increased recognition of the significance of symptoms among patients, and development and evaluation of interventions that are designed to ensure appropriate diagnosis and examination by practitioners

A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery.

AIM: Evaluation of surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is necessary to inform clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The standards of outcome reporting after CRC surgery have not previously been considered. METHOD: Systematic literature searches identified randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of CRC surgery. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorized into broad groups (outcome domains) and examined for a definition (an appropriate textual explanation or a supporting citation). Outcome reporting was considered inconsistent if results of the outcome specified in the methods were not reported. Outcome reporting was compared between randomized and nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: Of 5644 abstracts, 194 articles (34 randomized and 160 nonrandomized studies) were included reporting 766 different clinical outcomes, categorized into seven domains. A mean of 14 ± 8 individual outcomes were reported per study. 'Anastomotic leak', 'overall survival' and 'wound infection' were the three most frequently reported outcomes in 72, 60 and 44 (37.1%, 30.9% and 22.7%) studies, respectively, and no single outcome was reported in every publication. Outcome definitions were significantly more often provided in randomized studies than in nonrandomized studies (19.0% vs 14.9%, P = 0.015). One-hundred and twenty-seven (65.5%) papers reported results of all outcomes specified in the methods (randomized studies, n = 21, 61.5%; nonrandomized studies, n = 106, 66.2%; P = 0.617). CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting in CRC surgery lacks consistency and method. Improved standards of outcome measurement are recommended to permit data synthesis and transparent cross-study comparisons

Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer

This international study aimed to test the measurement properties of the updated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module for colorectal cancer, the QLQ-CR29. The QLQ-CR29 was administered with the QLQ-C30, core questionnaire, to 351 patients from seven countries. Questionnaire scaling and reliability were established and clinical and psychometric validity examined. Patient acceptability and understanding were assessed with a debriefing questionnaire. Multi-trait scaling analyses and face validity refined the module to four scales assessing urinary frequency, faecal seepage, stool consistency and body image and single items assessing other common problems following treatment for colorectal cancer. Scales distinguished between clinically distinct groups of patients and did not correlate with QLQ-C30 scales, demonstrating construct validity. The QLQ-CR29 scores were reproducible over time in stable health