Guidelines International Network: Principles for Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts in Guidelines

Conflicts of interest (COIs) have been defined by the American Thoracic Society as "a divergence between an individual's private interests and his or her professional obligations such that an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are motivated by personal gain, such as direct financial, academic advancement, clinical revenue streams, or community standing." In the context of guideline development, the concerns are not simply about identifying and disclosing direct financial or indirect COIs. Despite this recognition, the management of COIs in guidelines is often unsatisfactory. In response to requests from its international membership and informed by existing syntheses of the evidence and policies of international organizations, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees developed guidance on the disclosure of interests and management of COIs. Current approaches are relatively similar throughout the guideline development community, with an increasing recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing indirect COIs. Although there are differences in detail among the approaches, the similarities allow for the formulation of 9 core principles for managing COIs. In formulating these principles, the Guidelines International Network Board of Trustees recognizes that COIs cannot be totally avoided when panel members are being chosen for certain guidelines or in certain settings; thus, the important issue is the management of COIs in a fair, judicious, transparent manner.

Palliative radiotherapy regimens for patients with thoracic symptoms from non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Palliative radiotherapy to the chest is often used in patients with lung cancer, but radiotherapy regimens are more often based on tradition than research results. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and previously updated in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

The two objectives of this review were:1. To assess the effects of different palliative radiotherapy regimens on improving thoracic symptoms in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who are not suitable for radical RT given with curative intent.2. To assess the effects of radiotherapy dose on overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who are not suitable for radical RT given with curative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE (1966 - Jan 2014), EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, and discussion with experts were used to identify potentially eligible trials, published and unpublished.Two authors (FM and RS) independently identified all studies that may be suitable for inclusion in the review.We updated the search up to January 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials comparing different regimens of palliative thoracic radiotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers assessed search results independently and possible studies were highlighted and the full text obtained. Data were extracted and attempts were made to contact the original authors for missing information.The primary outcome measure was improvement in major thoracic symptoms (degree and duration). Secondary outcome measures were short and long term toxicities, effect on quality of life and overall survival.Patient reported outcomes were reported descriptively. Quantitative data such as survival and toxicity were analysed as dichotomous variables and reported using relative risks (RR).For this update of the review a meta-analysis of the survival data was carried out.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen randomised controlled trials (3576 patients) were included, with no new studies added in this update.There were important differences in the doses of radiotherapy investigated, the patient characteristics including disease stage and performance status and the outcome measures.The doses of RT investigated ranged from 10 Gy in 1 fraction (10Gy/1F) to 60 Gy/30F over six weeks, with a total of 19 different dose/ fractionation regimens.Potential biases were identified in some studies. Methods of randomisation, assessment of symptoms and statistical methods used were unclear in some papers. Withdrawal and drop-outs were accounted for in all but one study.All 13 studies that investigated symptoms reported that major thoracic symptoms improved following RT.There is no strong evidence that any regimen gives greater palliation. Higher dose regimens may give more acute toxicity and some regimens are associated with an increased risk of radiation myelitis. Variation in reporting of toxicities, in particular the absence of clear grading, means results of the meta-analysis should be treated with caution.Meta-analysis of overall survival broken down by performance status, a key variable, is included in this update. Further information was sought from all the original authors if stratified data was not included in the original publication. Three published studies contained sufficient data and seven authors were able to provide further information which represented 1992 patients (56% of all patients). The absence of data for nearly half of the patients has affected the quality of evidence.The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in 1-year overall survival between regimens with fewer radiotherapy fractions compared with regimens with more when patients were stratified by performance status. The results of the meta-analysis of 1-year overall survival for patients with good performance status (WHO performance status 0-1) showed moderately high heterogeneity and a summary result was not thought meaningful. The results of 1-year overall survival for patients with poor performance status was RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; moderate quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy for patients with incurable non-small cell lung cancer can improve thoracic symptoms. Care should be taken with the dose to the spinal cord to reduce the risk of radiation myelopathy. The higher dose, more fractionated palliative radiotherapy regimens do not provide better or more durable palliation and their use to prolong survival is not supported by strong evidence. More research is needed into reducing the acute toxicity of large fraction regimens and into the role of radical compared to high dose palliative radiotherapy. In the future, large trials comparing different RT regimens may be difficult to set up because of the increasing use of systemic chemotherapy. Trials looking at how best to integrate these two modalities, particularly in good PS patients, need to be carried out.

An exception that proves the rule: recurrence free survival five years after extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

Are case reports at all relevant and useful? A case report of an unusual case of mesothelioma prompts a discussion and concludes that they do have a role but that their observations and conclusions need to be treated with care.

Pulmonary metastasectomy: what is the practice and where is the evidence for effectiveness?

Pulmonary metastasectomy is a commonly performed operation and is tending to increase as part of a concept of personalised treatment for advanced cancer. There have been no randomised trials; belief in effectiveness of metastasectomy is based on registry data and surgical follow-up studies. These retrospective series are comprised predominately of solitary or few metastases with primary resection to metastasectomy intervals longer than 2-3 years. Five-year survival rates of 30-50% are recorded, but as case selection is based on favourable prognostic features, an apparent association between metastasectomy and survival cannot be interpreted as causation. Cancers for which lung metastasectomy is used are considered in four pathological groups. In non-seminomatous germ cell tumour, for which chemotherapy is highly effective, excision of residual pulmonary disease guides future treatment and in particular allows an informed decisions as to further chemotherapy. Sarcoma metastasises predominately to lung and pulmonary metastasectomy for both bone and soft tissues sarcoma is routinely considered as a treatment option but without randomised data. The commonest circumstance for lung and liver metastasectomy is colorectal cancer. Repeated resections and ablations are commonplace but without evidence of effectiveness for either. For melanoma, results are particularly poor, but lung metastases are resected when no other treatment options are available. In this review, the available evidence is considered and the conclusion reached is that in the absence of randomised trials there is uncertainty about effectiveness. A randomised controlled trial, Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC), is in progress and randomised trials in sarcoma seem warranted.

Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines

Guideline development processes vary substantially, and many guidelines do not meet basic quality criteria. Standards for guideline development can help organizations ensure that recommendations are evidence-based and can help users identify high-quality guidelines. Such organizations as the U.S. Institute of Medicine and the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have developed recommendations to define trustworthy guidelines within their locales. Many groups charged with guideline development find the lengthy list of standards developed by such organizations to be aspirational but infeasible to follow in entirety. Founded in 2002, the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) is a network of guideline developers that includes 93 organizations and 89 individual members representing 46 countries. The G-I-N board of trustees recognized the importance of guideline development processes that are both rigorous and feasible even for modestly funded groups to implement and initiated an effort toward consensus about minimum standards for high-quality guidelines. In contrast to other existing standards for guideline development at national or local levels, the key components proposed by G-I-N will represent the consensus of an international, multidisciplinary group of active guideline developers. This article presents G-I-N's proposed set of key components for guideline development. These key components address panel composition, decision-making process, conflicts of interest, guideline objective, development methods, evidence review, basis of recommendations, ratings of evidence and recommendations, guideline review, updating processes, and funding. It is hoped that this article promotes discussion and eventual agreement on a set of international standards for guideline development.

Hard choices: a qualitative study of influences on the treatment decisions made by advanced lung cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Most patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) present with an incurable, advanced disease, and treatment decisions may be hard. This study explored the factors that influence patients' choice of treatment during the oncologist-patient consultation.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews conducted within 1 month of a consultation with an oncologist.

PARTICIPANTS

Five patients newly diagnosed with incurable NSCLC and facing a treatment decision following a consultation with an oncologist.

SETTING

A regional oncology unit in the UK.

RESULTS

Some of the participants who opted for chemotherapy had made a decision before seeing the oncologist, presented with fewer symptoms, had been more active in seeking information before the consultation, and were willing to accept the risk of side effects. Participants opting for radiotherapy were not willing to accept the risk of side effects for the possibility of a small survival gain and instead focused on symptom relief.

CONCLUSION

Some participants sought information before the consultation from various formal and informal sources. This may undermine the oncologist-patient consultation as the information may be incomplete or inaccurate. Patients vary in their willingness to accept risks for small potential gains. More research is required into methods to communicate the extent of the risks of treatment. The Clinical Nurse Specialist performed a valuable role for the patients and was seen as a trusted source of information.