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.

Standardizing and monitoring the delivery of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials

Background

The complexity of surgical interventions has major implications for the design of RCTs. Trials need to consider how and whether to standardize interventions so that, if successful, they can be implemented in practice. Although guidance exists for standardizing non‐pharmaceutical interventions in RCTs, their application to surgery is unclear. This study reports new methods for standardizing the delivery of surgical interventions in RCTs.

Methods

Descriptions of 160 surgical interventions in existing trial reports and protocols were identified. Initially, ten reports were scrutinized in detail using a modified framework approach for the analysis of qualitative data, which informed the development of a preliminary typology. The typology was amended with iterative sequential application to all interventions. Further testing was undertaken within ongoing multicentre RCTs.

Results

The typology has three parts. Initially, the overall technical purpose of the intervention is described (exploration, resection and/or reconstruction) in order to establish its constituent components and steps. This detailed description of the intervention is then used to establish whether and how each component and step should be standardized, and the standards documented within the trial protocol. Finally, the typology provides a framework for monitoring the agreed intervention standards during the RCT. Pilot testing within ongoing RCTs enabled standardization of the interventions to be agreed, and case report forms developed to capture deviations from these standards.

Conclusion

The typology provides a framework for use during trial design to standardize the delivery of surgical interventions and document these details within protocols. Application of this typology to future RCTs may clarify details of the interventions under evaluation and help successful interventions to be implemented.

Design a perfect study

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 outcome/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into six 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 nine-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 six outcome/information categories.

Results

Data sources identified 1216 outcome/information items for 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 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 regarding survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than an important piece of information for decision-making (difference in mean 2.3, 95 % CI 1.9 to 2.8, p <0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (difference in mean 0.18, 95 % CI −0.1 to 0.4, p = 0.2 and difference in mean 0.2, 95 % CI −0.1 to 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.

Optimising recruitment and informed consent in randomised controlled trials: the development and implementation of the Quintet Recruitment Intervention (QRI)

Background

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered essential to determine effective interventions for routine clinical practice, but many fail to recruit participants efficiently, and some really important RCTs are not undertaken because recruitment is thought to be too difficult. The ‘QuinteT Recruitment Intervention’ (QRI) aims to facilitate informed decision making by patients about RCT participation and to increase recruitment. This paper presents the development and implementation of the QRI.

Methods

The QRI developed iteratively as a complex intervention. It emerged from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ProtecT trial and has been developed further in 13 RCTs. The final version of the QRI uses a combination of standard and innovative qualitative research methods with some simple quantification to understand recruitment and identify sources of difficulties.

Results

The QRI has two major phases: understanding recruitment as it happens and then developing a plan of action to address identified difficulties and optimise informed consent in collaboration with the RCT chief investigator (CI) and the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU). The plan of action usually includes RCT-specific, as well as generic, aspects. The QRI can be used in two ways: it can be integrated into the feasibility/pilot or main phase of an RCT to prevent difficulties developing and optimise recruitment from the start, or it can be applied to an ongoing RCT experiencing recruitment shortfalls, with a view to rapidly improving recruitment and informed consent or gathering evidence to justify RCT closure.

Conclusions

The QRI provides a flexible way of understanding recruitment difficulties and producing a plan to address them while ensuring engaged and well-informed decision making by patients. It can facilitate recruitment to the most controversial and important RCTs. QRIs are likely to be of interest to the CIs and CTUs developing proposals for ‘difficult’ RCTs or for RCTs with lower than expected recruitment and to the funding bodies wishing to promote efficient recruitment in pragmatic RCTs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1391-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The use of adjustable gastric bands for management of severe and complex obesity

BACKGROUND

Obesity levels in the UK have reached a sustained high and ∼4% of the population would be candidates for bariatric surgery based upon current UK NICE guidelines, which has important implications for Clinical Commissioning Groups.

SOURCES OF DATA

Summary data from Cochrane systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Currently, the only treatment that offers significant and durable weight loss for those with severe and complex obesity is surgery. Three operations account for 95% of all bariatric surgery in the UK, but the NHS offers surgery to only a small fraction of those who could benefit. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (gastric banding) has potentially the lowest risk and up-front costs of the three procedures.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Reliable Level 1 evidence of the relative effectiveness of the operations is lacking.

GROWING POINTS

As a point intervention, weight loss surgery together with the chronic disease management strategy for obesity can prevent significant future disease and mortality, and the NHS should embrace both.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Better RCT evidence is needed including clinical effectiveness and economic analysis to answer the important question 'which is the best of the three operations most frequently performed?' This review considers the current evidence for gastric banding for the treatment of severe and complex obesity.

'The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual': a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology

Background

Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.

Results

Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.

Conclusions

This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.

Differences in health-related quality of life between European and Asian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

The aim of this study is to explore the possible effects of clinical and cultural characteristics of hepatocellular carcinoma on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma from Asian and European countries completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-HCC18. Comparisons were made using Student's t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test with method of false discovery to correct multiple comparisons. Multiway analysis of variance and model selection were used to assess the effects of clinical characteristics and geographic areas.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-seven patients with hepatocellular carcinoma completed questionnaires. After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, Asian patients still had significantly better HRQoL scores in emotional functioning, insomnia, (QLQ-C30) and in sexual interest (QLQ-HCC18). We also found an interaction in physical functioning (QLQ-C30) and fatigue (QLQ-HCC18) between geographic region and marital status, married European had worse HRQoL scores than Asian singles.

CONCLUSIONS

Both clinical characteristics and geographic areas affected the HRQoL in with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cultural differences and clinical differences in the pattern of disease due to active surveillance of Asian countries may explain the results.

Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research

Policy makers have clearly indicated--through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute--that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.

Long term results and patterns of recurrence from SCOPE 1: A phase II/III randomised trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) plus or minus cetuximab (dCRT+C) in esophageal cancer

118

Background: One of the largest trials in dCRT for localised oesophageal cancer, SCOPE 1 tested the role of adding cetuximab to conventional dCRT, and showed that this was associated with greater toxicity and worse survival. Here we present the long-term outcomes. Methods: Phase II/III trial. Randomisation: cisplatin 60mg/m2 D1 and capecitabine 625mg/m2 daily D1-21 for 4 cycles with/without Cetuximab 400mg/m2 D1 followed by 250mg/m2weekly. RT: 50Gy in 25 fractions given concurrent with cycles 3 and 4. Recruitment: Feb 2008 - Feb 2012, when the IDMC recommended trial closure on the basis of futility. Results: 258 patients (dCRT = 129; dCRT+C = 129) were recruited from 36 centres. Median follow-up (IQR): 46.7 (36.0-49.0) months for all surviving pts. 65.1% (dCRT arm) and 69.8% (dCRT+C arm) of patients had died. Esophageal cancer was the cause in 82.1% and 86.7% of deaths respectively (p = 0.41). Median OS months (95% CI) was 34.5 (24.7-42.3) in dCRT and 24.7 (18.6-31.3) in dCRT+C (HR 1.25, p = 0.137); corresponding 3-year OS (95% CI) was 47.2% (38.2%-55.7%) and 37.6% (29.1%-46.0%). Median PFS (95% CI): 24.1 (15.3-29.9) and 15.9 (10.7-20.8) months respectively (HR1.28, p = 0.114). There was some evidence that local PFS (within RT field) was lower in the dCRT+C arm (HR1.38, p = 0.051). On multivariable analysis including treatment arm, Stage I-II ds (vs Stage III), full-dose RT and higher cisplatin dose intensity ( ≥ 75% vs < 75%) were associated with improved OS and PFS. Patterns of recurrence (n [%]) were similar in both arms (see table). In dCRT arm, 31/38 pts (81.6%) with local relapse within the RT field compared to 40/48 (83.3%) in the dCRT+C arm (p = 0.8). Conclusions: The mature analysis shows unprecedented survival in dCRT arm, comparable to surgical trials (e.g. 3-year OS % [95% CIs] in OE05: CF 39 [35, 44] and ECX 42 [37, 46], in OE02: 31 [27, 36]). OS inferiority of dCRT+C is no longer statistically significant. The lower PFS (within RT field) in the dCRT+C arm was consistent with the lower number of patients receiving full dose of RT in the dCRT+C arm. Clinical trial information: 47718479. [Table: see text]

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

BACKGROUND

A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database.

METHODS

A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database.

RESULTS

Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS.

PANasta Trial; Cattell Warren versus Blumgart techniques of panreatico-jejunostomy following pancreato-duodenectomy: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Failure of the pancreatic remnant anastomosis to heal following pancreato-duodenectomy is a major cause of significant and life-threatening complications, notably a post-operative pancreatic fistula. Recently, non-randomized trials have shown superiority of a most intuitive anastomosis (Blumgart technique), which involves both a duct-to-mucosa and a full-thickness pancreatic "U" stitch, in effect a mattress stitch, over a standard duct-mucosa technique (Cattell-Warren). The aim of this study is to examine if these findings remain within a randomized setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PANasta trial is a randomized, double-blinded multi-center study, whose primary aim is to assess whether a Blumgart pancreatic anastomosis (trial intervention) is superior to a Cattell-Warren pancreatic anastomosis (control intervention), in terms of pancreatic fistula rates. Patients with suspected malignancy of the pancreatic head, in whom a pancreato-duodenectomy is recommended, would be recruited from several UK specialist regional centers. The hypothesis to be tested is that a Blumgart anastomosis will reduce fistula rate from 20 to 10 %. Subjects will be stratified by research site, pancreatic consistency and diameter of pancreatic duct; giving a sample size of 253 per group. The primary outcome measure is fistula rate at the pancreatico-jejunostomy. Secondary outcome measures are: entry into adjuvant therapy, mortality, surgical complications, non-surgical complications, hospital stay, cancer-specific quality of life and health economic assessments. Enrolled patients will undergo pancreatic resection and be randomized immediately prior to pancreatic reconstruction. The operation note will only record "anastomosis constructed as per PANasta trial randomization," thus the other members of the trial team and patient are blinded. An inbuilt internal pilot study will assess the ability to randomize patients, while the construction of an operative manual and review of operative photographs will maintain standardization of techniques.

DISCUSSION

The PANasta trial will be the first multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing two types of duct-to-mucosa pancreatic anastomosis with surgical quality assurance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN52263879 . Date of registration 15 January 2015.

Novel ways to explore surgical interventions in randomised controlled trials: applying case study methodology in the operating theatre

Background

Multi-centre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are challenging. It is particularly difficult to establish standards of surgery and ensure that interventions are delivered as intended. This study developed and tested methods for identifying the key components of surgical interventions and standardising interventions within RCTs.

Qualitative case studies of surgical interventions were undertaken within the internal pilot phase of a surgical RCT for obesity (the By-Band study). Each case study involved video data capture and non-participant observation of gastric bypass surgery in the operating theatre and interviews with surgeons. Methods were developed to transcribe and synchronise data from video recordings with observational data to identify key intervention components, which were then explored in the interviews with surgeons.

Results

Eight qualitative case studies were undertaken. A novel combination of video data capture, observation and interview data identified variations in intervention delivery between surgeons and centres. Although surgeons agreed that the most critical intervention component was the size and shape of the gastric pouch, there was no consensus regarding other aspects of the procedure. They conceded that evidence about the ‘best way’ to perform bypass was lacking and, combined with the pragmatic nature of the By-Band study, agreed that strict standardisation of bypass might not be required.

Conclusions

This study has developed and tested methods for understanding how surgical interventions are designed and delivered delivered in RCTs. Applying these methods more widely may help identify key components of interventions to be delivered by surgeons in trials, enabling monitoring of key components and adherence to the protocol. These methods are now being tested in the context of other surgical RCTs.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00786323, 05/09/2011.

Health-Related Quality of Life in SCALOP, a Randomized Phase 2 Trial Comparing Chemoradiation Therapy Regimens in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) provides survival benefits but may result in considerable toxicity. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) measurements during CRT have not been widely reported. This paper reports HRQL data from the Selective Chemoradiation in Advanced Localised Pancreatic Cancer (SCALOP) trial, including validation of the QLQ-PAN26 tool in CRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, nonmetastatic carcinoma of the pancreas were eligible. Following 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP) chemotherapy, patients with stable and responding disease were randomized to a further cycle of GEMCAP followed by capecitabine- or gemcitabine-based CRT. HRQL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Pancreatic Cancer module (PAN26).

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients from 28 UK centers were registered and 74 patients randomized. There was improvement in the majority of HRQL scales during induction chemotherapy. Patients with significant deterioration in fatigue, appetite loss, and gastrointestinal symptoms during CRT recovered within 3 weeks following CRT. Differences in changes in HRQL scores between trial arms rarely reached statistical significance; however, where they did, they favored capecitabine therapy. PAN26 scales had good internal consistency and were able to distinguish between subgroups of patients experiencing toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is deterioration in HRQL following CRT, this resolves within 3 weeks. HRQL data support the use of capecitabine- over gemcitabine-based chemoradiation. The QLQ-PAN26 is a reliable and valid tool for use in patients receiving CRT.

The COMET initiative database: progress and activities update (2014)

The COMET Initiative database is a repository of studies relevant to the development of core outcome sets (COS). Use of the website continues to increase, with more than 16,500 visits in 2014 (36 % increase over 2013), 12,257 unique visitors (47 % increase), 9780 new visitors (43 % increase) and a rise in the proportion of visits from outside the UK (8565 visits; 51 % of all visits). By December 2014, a total of 6588 searches had been completed, with 2383 in 2014 alone (11 % increase). The growing awareness of the need for COS is reflected in the website and database usage figures.

Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the content and quality of written information provided by surgical centres for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of the content of National Health Service (NHS) patient information leaflets (PILs) about oesophageal cancer surgery, using a modified framework approach.

DATA SOURCES

Written information leaflets from 41 of 43 cancer centres undertaking surgery for oesophageal cancer in England and Wales (response rate 95.3%).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All English language versions of PILs about oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

32 different PILs were identified, of which 2 were generic tools (Macmillan 'understanding cancer of the gullet' and EIDO 'oesophagectomy'). Although most PILs focused on describing in-hospital adverse events, information varied widely and was often misleading. Just 1 leaflet described survival benefits of surgery and 2 mentioned the possibility of disease recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Written information provided for patients by NHS cancer centres undertaking oesophagectomy is inconsistent and incomplete. It is recommended that surgeons work together with patients to agree on standards of information provision of relevance to all stakeholders' needs.

Interventions in randomised controlled trials in surgery: issues to consider during trial design

Until recently, insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that surgical interventions are complex. This complexity has several implications, including the way in which surgical interventions are described and delivered in trials. In order for surgeons to adopt trial findings, interventions need to be described in sufficient detail to enable accurate replication; however, it may be permissible to allow some aspects to be delivered according to local practice. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the design of surgical interventions in trial protocols and reports. Key issues to consider when designing surgical interventions include the identification of each surgical intervention and their components, who will deliver the interventions, and where and how the interventions will be standardised and monitored during the trial. The trial design (pragmatic and explanatory), comparator and stage of innovation may also influence the extent of detail required. Thoughtful consideration of surgical interventions in this way may help with the interpretation of trial results and the adoption of successful interventions into clinical practice.

Patient-reported outcomes during and after definitive chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Limited data describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of localised oesophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy(CRT). The phase 2/3 SCOPE-1 trial assessed the effectiveness of CRT±cetuximab. The trial for the first time provided an opportunity to describe PROs from a multi-centre group of patients treated with CRT that are presented here.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CRT±cetuximab within the SCOPE-1 trial (258 patients from 36 UK centres) completed generic-, disease- and treatment-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-OES18, Dermatology Life-Quality Index (DLQI)) at baseline and at 7, 13, 24, 52 and 104 weeks. Mean EORTC functional scale scores (>15 point change significant), DLQI scores (>4 point change significant) and proportions of patients (>15% significant) with 'minimal' or 'severe' symptoms are presented.

RESULTS

Questionnaire response rates were good. At baseline, EORTC functional scores were high (>75%) and few symptoms were reported except for severe problems with fatigue, insomnia and eating-related symptoms (e.g., appetite loss, dysphagia, dry mouth) in both groups(>15%). Functional aspects of health deteriorated and symptoms increased with treatment and by week 13 global quality of life, physical, role and social function significantly deteriorated and more problems with fatigue, dyspnoea, appetite loss and trouble with taste were reported. Recovery occurred by 6 months (except severe fatigue and insomnia in >15% of patients) and maintained at follow-up with no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CRT for localised oesophageal cancer has a significant detrimental impact on many aspects of HRQL; however, recovery is achieved by 6 months and maintained with the exception of persisting problems with severe fatigue and insomnia. The data suggest that the HRQL recovery after definitive CRT is quicker, and there is little lasting deficit compared with treatment including surgery. These data need to be compared with HRQL data from studies evaluating treatments including surgery for oesophageal cancer.

The Prognostic Value of Patient-Reported Outcome Data in Patients With Colorectal Hepatic Metastases Who Underwent Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical to evaluate clinically effective treatments and evidence suggests that PROs might predict survival. The prognostic value of PROs in patients with isolated liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) who undergo surgery is unclear. In this study we investigated whether baseline PROs are prognostic in this patient group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From April 2004 to May 2007, consecutive patients who underwent curative resection of CRC liver metastases completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and QLQ-LMC21 questionnaires before surgery. Patients were followed until death or data were censored on April 9, 2012. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the effect of PROs on survival controlling for predefined clinical covariates. Models were simplified using a backwards stepwise approach and model utility appraised using the Harrell C and Somers D statistics and bootstrap methods.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two patients underwent liver resection and 101 (43.5%) survived 5 years. Multivariate analysis controlling for relevant clinical covariates showed that a 10-point improvement in baseline global quality of life scores was associated with a 54% improvement in survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.63; P < .001), and a clinically significant weight loss was associated with 75% worse survival (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.20-2.55; P = .004). Smaller effects were noted for worsening abdominal pain, taste problems, and fatigue (30%-38% poorer survival). Results of bootstrap resampling suggested that global health and weight loss most reliably predicted survival.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study demonstrated that patients who reported worse baseline global quality of life and increased weight loss before liver resection for CRC liver metastases had significantly poorer survival. These findings if externally validated might be used to inform patients, and could also influence treatment planning and advise follow-up strategies and supportive care.

Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery

BACKGROUND

Appropriate outcome selection is essential if research is to guide decision-making and inform policy. Systematic reviews of the clinical, cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes of reconstructive breast surgery, however, have demonstrated marked heterogeneity, and results from individual studies cannot be compared or combined. Use of a core outcome set may improve the situation. The BRAVO study developed a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery.

METHODS

A long list of outcomes identified from systematic reviews and stakeholder interviews was used to inform a questionnaire survey. Key stakeholders defined as individuals involved in decision-making for reconstructive breast surgery, including patients, breast and plastic surgeons, specialist nurses and psychologists, were sampled purposively and sent the questionnaire (round 1). This asked them to rate the importance of each outcome on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important). The proportion of respondents rating each item as very important (score 7-9) was calculated. This was fed back to participants in a second questionnaire (round 2). Respondents were asked to reprioritize outcomes based on the feedback received. Items considered very important after round 2 were discussed at consensus meetings, where the core outcome set was agreed.

RESULTS

A total of 148 items were combined into 34 domains within six categories. Some 303 participants (51·4 per cent) (215 (49·5 per cent) of 434 patients; 88 (56·4 per cent) of 156 professionals) completed and returned the round 1 questionnaire, and 259 (85·5 per cent) reprioritized outcomes in round 2. Fifteen items were excluded based on questionnaire scores and 19 were carried forward to the consensus meetings, where a core outcome set containing 11 key outcomes was agreed.

CONCLUSION

The BRAVO study has used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for reconstructive breast surgery. Widespread adoption by the reconstructive community will improve the quality of outcome assessment in effectiveness studies. Future work will evaluate how these key outcomes should best be measured.