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.

Use of a formal consensus development technique to produce recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health multidisciplinary team meetings

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the core mechanism for delivering mental health care but it is unclear which models improve care quality. The aim of the study was to agree recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health MDT meetings, based on national guidance, research evidence and experiential insights from mental health and other medical specialties.

METHODS

We established an expert panel of 16 health care professionals, policy-makers and patient representatives. Five panellists had experience in a range of adult mental health services, five in heart failure services and six in cancer services. Panellists privately rated 68 potential recommendations on a scale of one to nine, and re-rated them after panel discussion using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine consensus.

RESULTS

We obtained agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in extent of agreement (Mean Absolute Deviation from Median of ≤1.11) for 21 recommendations. These included the explicit agreement and auditing of MDT meeting objectives, and the documentation and monitoring of treatment plan implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Formal consensus development methods that involved learning across specialities led to feasible recommendations for improved MDT meeting effectiveness in a wide range of settings. Our findings may be used by adult mental health teams to reflect on their practice and facilitate improvement. In some other contexts, the recommendations will require modification. For example, in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, context-specific issues such as the role of carers should be taken into account. A limitation of the comparative approach adopted was that only five members of the panel of 16 experts were mental health specialists.

Systematic review and critical appraisal of the impact of acellular dermal matrix use on the outcomes of implant-based breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may improve outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). The aim of this study was critically to appraise and evaluate the current evidence for ADM-assisted IBBR.

METHODS

Comprehensive electronic searches identified complete papers published in English between January 2000 and August 2013, reporting any outcome of ADM-assisted IBBR. All systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) with more than 20 ADM recipients were included. Studies were critically appraised using AMSTAR for systematic reviews, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and its adaptation for NRSs. Characteristics and results of identified studies were summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 69 papers (8 systematic reviews, 1 RCT, 40 comparative studies and 20 case series) were identified, all of which were considered at high risk of bias, mostly due to patient selection and selective outcome reporting. The median ADM group sample size was 51.0 (i.q.r. 33.0-127.0). Most studies were single-centre (54), and they were often single-surgeon (16). ADM was most commonly used for immediate (40) two-stage IBBR (36) using human ADM (47), with few studies evaluating ADM-assisted single-stage procedures (10). All reported clinical outcomes (for example implant loss) and more than half of the papers (33) assessed process outcomes, but few evaluated cosmesis (16) or patient-reported outcomes (10). Heterogeneity between study design and, especially, outcome measurement precluded meaningful data synthesis.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence for the value of ADMs in IBBR is limited. Use in practice should therefore be considered experimental, and evaluation within registries or well designed and conducted studies, ideally RCTs, is recommended to prevent widespread adoption of a potentially inferior intervention.

Systematic review of intervention design and delivery in pragmatic and explanatory surgical randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions are complex, with multiple components that require consideration in trial reporting. This review examines the reporting of details of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) within the context of explanatory and pragmatic study designs.

METHODS

Systematic searches identified RCTs of surgical interventions published in 2010 and 2011. Included studies were categorized as predominantly explanatory or pragmatic. The extent of intervention details in the reports were compared with the CONSORT statement for reporting trials of non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT). CONSORT-NPT recommends reporting the descriptions of surgical interventions, whether they were standardized and adhered to (items 4a, 4b and 4c). Reporting of the context of intervention delivery (items 3 and 15) and operator expertise (item 15) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 4541 abstracts and 131 full-text articles, 80 were included (of which 39 were classified as predominantly pragmatic), reporting 160 interventions. Descriptions of 129 interventions (80.6 per cent) were provided. Standardization was mentioned for 47 (29.4 per cent) of the 160 interventions, and 22 articles (28 per cent) reported measurement of adherence to at least one aspect of the intervention. Seventy-one papers (89 per cent) provided some information about context. For one-third of interventions (55, 34.4 per cent), some data were provided regarding the expertise of personnel involved. Reporting standards were similar in trials classified as pragmatic or explanatory.

CONCLUSION

The lack of detail in trial reports about surgical interventions creates difficulties in understanding which operations were actually evaluated. Methods for designing and reporting surgical interventions in RCTs, contributing to the quality of the overall study design, are required. This should allow better implementation of trial results into practice.

Core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgeons provide patients with information before surgery, although standards of information are lacking and practice varies. The development and use of a 'core information set' as baseline information before surgery may improve understanding. A core set is a minimum set of information to use in all consultations before a specific procedure. This study developed a core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Information was identified from the literature, observations of clinical consultations and patient interviews. This was integrated to create a questionnaire survey. Stakeholders (patients and professionals) were surveyed twice to assess views on importance of information from 'not essential' to 'absolutely essential' using Delphi methods. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded after each survey and the final retained items were voted on, in separate patient and professional stakeholder meetings, to agree the core set.

RESULTS

Some 67 information items were identified initially from multiple sources. Survey response rates were 76·5 per cent (185 of 242) and 54·8 per cent (126 of 230) for patients and professionals respectively (first round), and over 83 per cent in both groups thereafter. Health professionals rated short-term clinical outcomes most highly (technical complications), whereas patients prioritized information related to long-term benefits. The consensus meetings agreed the final set, which consisted of: in-hospital milestones to recovery, rates of open-and-close surgery, in-hospital mortality, major complications (reoperation), milestones in recovery after discharge, longer-term eating and drinking and overall quality of life, and chances of survival.

CONCLUSION

This study has established a core information set for surgery for oesophageal cancer.

Investigating the collection and assessment of patient-reported outcome data amongst unplanned surgical hospital admissions: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can be challenging to conduct, and trials in the emergency surgical setting when patients have unplanned hospital admissions are particularly difficult. One area of challenge is capturing baseline patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This study examined the feasibility and optimal methods for the collection of baseline and follow-up PRO data in the setting of unplanned surgical hospital admissions.

METHODS

Clinically stable adult patients with unplanned admissions through the day and night under the care of general surgeons at two acute NHS trusts were approached during working week days and asked to complete validated PRO measures (European Quality of Life-5 Dimension, Short Form-12, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index) on admission and 6 weeks following discharge. Feasibility of PRO data collection was determined by the proportions of admitted patients eligible and recruited and by questionnaire-response rates at baseline and follow up. Reasons for non-recruitment and non-completion of questionnaires were sought and recorded.

RESULTS

There were 276 admissions, of whom 235 (85.1 %) were eligible. Reasons for ineligibility were the following: age under 18 years old (n = 5, 1.8 %), non-surgical presenting complaint (n = 6, 2.2 %) and clinical instability (n = 30, 10.9 %). One hundred and sixty-six patients (70.6 %) were recruited (98 female, 59.0 %); median age 53, range 19-100). Common reasons for non-recruitment included patients being discharged home before approached by researchers (n = 29, 12.3 %) or declining participation because they felt unwell (n = 15, 6.4 %). The most common reason for admission to the hospital was abdominal pain (n = 120, 72.3 % recruited patients), of whom 50 (30.1 %) required operative intervention. Baseline PRO data was obtained from 153 patients (93.3 %), and 74 (48.4 %) returned follow-up questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Collection of baseline PRO data amongst unplanned admissions in general surgery is feasible. Methods for optimising retention and follow up are needed.

Quality of life changes in patients undergoing treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. One of the primary treatment goals for incurable advanced cases is to prolong quality of life (QoL). Thus, to determine which HCC therapies may be linked to a more favorable QoL, we assessed the association between QoL changes and different treatments in HCC patients.

METHODS

We analyzed a non-randomized multicenter longitudinal study, which included 171 patients treated with surgery (n = 53), ablation (n = 53) or embolization (n = 65) from seven centers: four Asian and three European sites. All participants completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-HCC18 questionnaires before and after treatment. Propensity scores were calculated and used in addition to race for adjustment in the logistic regression model to account for the confounding effects of patient characteristics including age, gender, race, employment, living with family, at least one comorbid condition, years since diagnosis, prior treatment history, BCLC stage, Child-Pugh grade, cirrhosis, bilirubin levels and QoL score before treatment.

RESULTS

After adjustment for confounders, patients tended to have higher odds of QoL deterioration when treated with ablation versus embolization (dyspnea: p = 0.019; appetite loss: p = 0.018; body image: p = 0.035) or ablation versus surgery (dyspnea: p = 0.099; appetite loss: p = 0.100; body image: p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant differences in QoL deterioration across different treatment groups. This information may assist patients and providers when selecting patient-centered treatment approaches for HCC.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of colorectal cancer: an analysis determining the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making

PURPOSE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time.

METHODS

A systematic review from January 2004-February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research-patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.

A simple technique to identify key recruitment issues in randomised controlled trials: Q-QAT - Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing

Background

Recruitment to pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is acknowledged to be difficult, and few interventions have proved to be effective. Previous qualitative research has consistently revealed that recruiters provide imbalanced information about RCT treatments. However, qualitative research can be time-consuming to apply. Within a programme of research to optimise recruitment and informed consent in challenging RCTs, we developed a simple technique, Q-QAT (Quanti-Qualitative Appointment Timing), to systematically investigate and quantify the imbalance to help identify and address recruitment difficulties.

Methods

The Q-QAT technique comprised: 1) quantification of time spent discussing the RCT and its treatments using transcripts of audio-recorded recruitment appointments, 2) targeted qualitative research to understand the obstacles to recruitment and 3) feedback to recruiters on opportunities for improvement. This was applied to two RCTs with different clinical contexts and recruitment processes. Comparisons were made across clinical centres, recruiters and specialties.

Results

In both RCTs, the Q-QAT technique first identified considerable variations in the time spent by recruiters discussing the RCT and its treatments. The patterns emerging from this initial quantification of recruitment appointments then enabled targeted qualitative research to understand the issues and make suggestions to improve recruitment. In RCT1, presentation of the treatments was balanced, but little time was devoted to describing the RCT. Qualitative research revealed patients would have considered participation, but lacked awareness of the RCT. In RCT2, the balance of treatment presentation varied by specialists and centres. Qualitative research revealed difficulties with equipoise and confidence among recruiters presenting the RCT. The quantitative and qualitative findings were well-received by recruiters and opportunities to improve information provision were discussed. A blind coding exercise across three researchers led to the development of guidelines that can be used to apply the Q-QAT technique to other difficult RCTs.

Conclusion

The Q-QAT technique was easy to apply and rapidly identified obstacles to recruitment that could be understood through targeted qualitative research and addressed through feedback. The technique’s combination of quantitative and qualitative findings enabled the presentation of a holistic picture of recruitment challenges and added credibility to the feedback process.

Note: both RCTs in this manuscript asked to be anonymised, so no trial registration details are provided.

Role of information in preparing men for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a qualitative study embedded in the ProtecT trial

BACKGROUND

The histological diagnosis of prostate cancer requires a prostate needle biopsy. Little is known about the relationship between information provided to prepare men for transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) and how men experience biopsy. The objectives were a) to understand men's experiences of biopsy as compared to their expectations; and b) to propose current evidence-based information for men undergoing TRUS-Bx.

METHODS

Between February 2006 and May 2008, 1,147 men undergoing a standardised 10-core transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy protocol under antibiotic cover following a PSA 3.0-19.9 ng/ml in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial, completed questionnaires about biopsy symptoms. In this embedded qualitative study, in-depth interviews were undertaken with 85 men (mean age 63.6 yrs, mean PSA 4.5 ng/ml) to explore men's experiences of prostate biopsy and how the experience might be improved. Interview data were analysed thematically using qualitative research methods. Findings from the qualitative study were used to guide selection of key findings from the questionnaire study in developing a patient information leaflet preparing men for biopsy.

RESULTS

Although most men tolerated TRUS-Bx, a quarter reported problematic side-effects and anxiety. Side effects were perceived as problematic and anxiety arose most commonly when experiences deviated from information provided. Men who were unprepared for elements of TRUS-Bx procedure or its sequelae responded by contacting health professionals for reassurance and voiced frustration that pre-biopsy information had understated the possible severity or duration of pain/discomfort and bleeding. Findings from questionnaire and interview data were combined to propose a comprehensive, evidence-based patient information leaflet for TRUS-Bx.

CONCLUSIONS

Men reported anxiety associated with TRUS-Bx or its side-effects most commonly if they felt inadequately prepared for the procedure. Data from this qualitative study and the previous questionnaire study have been used to propose an updated, comprehensive evidence-based set of information for men undergoing TRUS-Bx.

Systematic review of surgical innovation reporting in laparoendoscopic colonic polyp resection

Background

The IDEAL framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) proposes a staged assessment of surgical innovation, but whether it can be used in practice is uncertain. This study aimed to review the reporting of a surgical innovation according to the IDEAL framework.

Methods

Systematic literature searches identified articles reporting laparoendoscopic excision for benign colonic polyps. Using the IDEAL stage recommendations, data were collected on: patient selection, surgeon and unit expertise, description of the intervention and modifications, outcome reporting, and research governance. Studies were categorized by IDEAL stages: 0/1, simple technical preclinical/clinical reports; 2a, technique modifications with rationale and safety data; 2b, expanded patient selection and reporting of both innovation and standard care outcomes; 3, formal randomized controlled trials; and 4, long-term audit and registry studies. Each stage has specific requirements for reporting of surgeon expertise, governance details and outcome reporting.

Results

Of 615 abstracts screened, 16 papers reporting outcomes of 550 patients were included. Only two studies could be put into IDEAL categories. One animal study was classified as stage 0 and one clinical study as stage 2a through prospective ethical approval, protocol registration and data collection. Studies could not be classified according to IDEAL for insufficient reporting details of patient selection, relevant surgeon expertise, and how and why the technique was modified or adapted.

Conclusion

The reporting of innovation in the context of laparoendoscopic colonic polyp excision would benefit from standardized methods.

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was 'surgical complications', and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of 'adverse events'. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.

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.

Delphi survey to identify topics to be addressed at the initial follow-up consultation after oesophageal cancer surgery

Background

There is no consensus among patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the topics that need to be addressed after oesophageal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to identify these topics, using a two-round Delphi survey.

Methods

In round 1, patients and HCPs (surgeons, dieticians, nurses) were invited to rate the importance of 49 topics. The proportion of panellists that considered a topic to be of low, moderate or high importance was then calculated for each of these two groups. Based on these proportions and the i.q.r., topics were categorized as: ‘consensus to be included’, ‘consensus to be excluded’ and ‘no consensus’. Only topics in the first category were included in the second round. In round 2, panellists were provided with individual and group feedback. To be included in the final list, topics had to meet criteria for consensus and stability.

Results

There were 108 patients and 77 HCPs in the round 2 analyses. In general, patients and HCPs considered the same topics important. The final list included 23 topics and revealed that it was most important to address: cancer removed/lymph nodes, the new oesophagus, eating and drinking, surgery, alarming new complaints and the recovery period.

Conclusion

The study provides surgeons with a list of topics selected by patients and HCPs that may be addressed systematically at the initial follow-up consultation after oesophageal cancer surgery.

Improving the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with chronic diseases: a prospective observational study

Background

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings have been endorsed by the Department of Health as the core model for managing chronic diseases. However, the evidence for their effectiveness is mixed and the degree to which they have been absorbed into clinical practice varies widely across conditions and settings. We aimed to identify the key characteristics of chronic disease MDT meetings that are associated with decision implementation, a measure of effectiveness, and to derive a set of feasible modifications to MDT meetings to improve decision-making.

Methods

We undertook a mixed-methods prospective observational study of 12 MDTs in the London and North Thames area, covering cancer, heart failure, mental health and memory clinic teams. Data were collected by observation of 370 MDT meetings, completion of the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) by 161 MDT members, interviews with 53 MDT members and 20 patients, and review of 2654 patients’ medical records. We examined the influence of patient-related factors (disease, age, sex, deprivation indicator, whether or not their preferences and other clinical/health behaviours were mentioned) and MDT features (team climate and skill mix) on the implementation of MDT treatment plans. Interview and observation data were thematically analysed and integrated to explore possible explanations for the quantitative findings, and to identify areas of diverse beliefs and practice across MDT meetings. Based on these data, we used a modified formal consensus technique involving expert stakeholders to derive a set of indications of good practice for effective MDT meetings.

Results

The adjusted odds of implementation were reduced by 25% for each additional professional group represented [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.87], though there was some evidence of a differential effect by type of disease. Implementation was more likely in MDTs with clear goals and processes and a good team climate (adjusted odds of implementation increased by 7%; 95% CI 1% to 13% for a 0.1-unit increase in TCI score). Implementation varied by disease category (with the lowest adjusted odds of implementation in mental health teams) and by patient deprivation (adjusted odds of implementation for patients in the most compared with least deprived areas were 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). We ascertained 16 key themes within five domains where there was substantial diversity in beliefs and practices across MDT meetings. These related to the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings, as well as to the role of the patient. We identified 68 potential recommendations for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings. Of these, 21 engendered both strong agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in the extent of agreement (mean absolute deviation from the median of < 1.11) among the expert consensus panel. These related to the purpose of the meetings (e.g. that agreeing treatment plans should take precedence over other objectives); meeting processes (e.g. that MDT decision implementation should be audited annually); content of the discussion (e.g. that information on comorbidities and past medical history should be routinely available); and the role of the patient (e.g. concerning the most appropriate time to discuss treatment options). Panellists from all specialties agreed that these recommendations were both desirable and feasible. We were unable to achieve consensus for 17 statements. In part, this was a result of disease-specific differences including the need to be prescriptive about MDT membership, with local flexibility deemed appropriate for heart failure and uniformity supported for cancer. In other cases, our data suggest that some processes (e.g. discussion of unrelated research topics) should be locally agreed, depending on the preferences of individual teams.

Conclusions

Substantial diversity exists in the purpose, structure, processes and content of MDT meetings. Greater multidisciplinarity is not necessarily associated with more effective decision-making and MDT decisions (as measured by decision implementation). Decisions were less likely to be implemented for patients living in more deprived areas. We identified 21 indications of good practice for improving the effectiveness of MDT meetings, which expert stakeholders from a range of chronic disease specialties agree are both desirable and feasible. These are important because MDT meetings are resource-intensive and they should deliver value to the NHS and patients. Priorities for future work include research to examine whether or not the 21 indications of good practice identified in this study will lead to better decision-making; for example, incorporating the indications into a modified MDT and experimentally evaluating its effectiveness in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Other areas for further research include exploring the value of multidisciplinarity in MDT meetings and the reasons for low implementation in community mental health teams. There is also scope to examine the underlying determinants of the inequalities demonstrated in this study, for example by exploring patient preferences in more depth. Finally, future work could examine the association between MDT decision implementation and improvements in patient outcomes.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The association of time between diagnosis and major resection with poorer colorectal cancer survival: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Colorectal cancer survival in the UK is lower than in other developed countries, but the association of time interval between diagnosis and treatment on excess mortality remains unclear.

Methods

Using data from cancer registries in England, we identified 46,511 patients with localised colorectal cancer between 1996–2009, who were 15 years and older, and who underwent a major surgical resection within 62 days of diagnosis. We used relative survival and excess risk modeling to investigate the association of time between diagnosis and major resection (exposure) with survival (outcome).

Results

Compared to patients who had major resection within 25–38 days of diagnosis, patients with a shorter time interval between diagnosis and resection and those waiting longer for resection had higher excess mortality (Excess Hazards Ratio, EHR <25 vs 25–38 days: 1.50; 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 1.37 to 1.66; EHR 39–62 vs 25–38 days : 1.16; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.29). Excess mortality was associated with age (EHR 75+ vs. 15–44 year olds: 2.62; 95% CI: 2.00 to 3.42) and deprivation (EHR most vs. least deprived: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.45), but time between diagnosis and resection did not explain these differences.

Conclusion

Within 62 days of diagnosis, a U-shaped association of time between diagnosis and major resection with excess mortality for localised colorectal cancer was evident. This indicates a complicated treatment pathway, particularly for patients who had resection earlier than 25 days, and requires further investigation.

Patient-reported outcomes in long-term survivors of metastatic colorectal cancer needing liver resection

Background

Five-year survival after hepatic resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases is good, but data on patient-reported outcomes are lacking. This study describes the long-term impact of liver surgery for CRC metastases on patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

The study used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) C30 and the disease-specific module, EORTC QLQ-LMC21. For functional scales, mean scores out of 100 with 95 per cent c.i. were calculated; differences of 10 points or more were considered clinically significant. Responses to symptom scales and items were categorized as ‘minimal’ or ‘severe’. Proportions and 95 per cent c.i. for symptoms were calculated.

Results

A total of 241 patients were recruited; nine (3·7 per cent) had unresectable disease and were excluded. Some 68 (42 men) of 80 long-term survivors participated; their mean age was 69·5 years and median follow-up was 8·0 (range 6·9–9·2) years. Values for baseline and 1-year patient-reported outcome data were similar. Scores for functional scales were excellent (emotional function: 92, 95 per cent c.i. 87 to 96; social function: 94, 89 to 99; role function: 94, 90 to 98), reflecting clinically significant improvements from baseline values of 17 (10 to 24), 12 (3 to 21) and 12 (3 to 20) respectively. Severe symptoms were uncommon (affected less than 5 per cent of patients) for most patient-reported outcome scales or items, but persistent severe symptoms were noted for sexual function (2 per cent increase from baseline), peripheral neuropathy (2 per cent increase), constipation (10 per cent increase) and diarrhoea (5 per cent increase).

Conclusion

Long-term survivors of metastatic colorectal cancer who have undergone liver surgery have excellent global quality of life, high levels of function and few symptoms.

Training recruiters to randomized trials to facilitate recruitment and informed consent by exploring patients' treatment preferences

BACKGROUND

Patients' treatment preferences are often cited as barriers to recruitment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated how RCT recruiters reacted to patients' treatment preferences and identified key strategies to improve informed decision-making and trial recruitment.

METHODS

Audio-recordings of 103 RCT recruitment appointments with 96 participants in three UK multicenter pragmatic RCTs were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Recruiters' responses to expressed treatment preferences were assessed in one RCT (ProtecT - Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) in which training on exploring preferences had been given, and compared with two other RCTs where this specific training had not been given.

RESULTS

Recruiters elicited treatment preferences similarly in all RCTs but responses to expressed preferences differed substantially. In the ProtecT RCT, patients' preferences were not accepted at face value but were explored and discussed at length in three key ways: eliciting and acknowledging the preference rationale, balancing treatment views, and emphasizing the need to keep an open mind and consider all treatments. By exploring preferences, recruiters enabled participants to become clearer about whether their views were robust enough to be sustained or were sufficiently weak that participation in the RCT became possible. Conversely, in the other RCTs, treatment preferences were often readily accepted without further discussion or understanding the reasoning behind them, suggesting that patients were not given the opportunity to fully consider all treatments and trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruiters can be trained to elicit and address patients' treatment preferences, enabling those who may not have considered trial participation to do so. Without specific guidance, some RCT recruiters are likely to accept initial preferences at face value, missing opportunities to promote more informed decision-making. Training interventions for recruiters that incorporate key strategies to manage treatment preferences, as in the ProtecT study, are required to facilitate recruitment and informed consent.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ProtecT RCT: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. The other two trials are registered but have asked to be anonymized.

The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013

The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database is an international repository of studies relevant to the development of core outcome sets. By the end of 2013, it included a unique collection of 306 studies. The website is increasingly being used, with more than 12,000 visits in 2013 (a 55% increase over 2012), 8,369 unique visitors (a 53% increase) and 6,844 new visitors (a 48% increase). There has been a rise in visits from outside the United Kingdom, with 2,405 such visits in 2013 (30% of all visits). By December 2013, a total of 4,205 searches had been completed, with 2,139 in 2013 alone.

Gefitinib for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy (COG): a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0-2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179.

FINDINGS

Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23-4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97-4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference -8·61, 95% CI -14·49 to -2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI -2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (-3·18, 95% CI -8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (-4·11, 95% CI -9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23-1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07-1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023).

INTERPRETATION

The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK.