Core Set of Patient-reported Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer (COPRAC): An International Delphi Study Among Patients and Health Care Providers

A Delphi Panel of People With Parkinson's Disease Regarding Responsibility: Toward a Preliminary Taxonomy

IMPORTANCE

A sense of agency is associated with complex occupation-related responsibilities. A taxonomy can guide clinicians in enhancing responsibility in patients with Parkinson's disease (PwPD).

OBJECTIVE

To (1) discover levels of responsibility in occupations for PwPD and (2) propose a taxonomy for occupations.

DESIGN

A two-round Delphi study with PwPD and a one-round Delphi study with international experts.

SETTING

Electronic survey.

PARTICIPANTS

PwPD (N = 75) and international experts (N = 8).

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

PwPD expressed their levels of an inherent sense of responsibility for each occupation (1 = very low responsibility, 5 = very high responsibility). International experts rated their level of agreement (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) with each dimension of the taxonomy. A consensus was determined to have been reached if the interquartile range was ≤1 and 70% agreement in two adjacent categories was achieved.

RESULTS

Thirty-three occupation categories were deemed as having very high to moderate responsibility for PwPD. Consequences of actions and the presence of others made up the two-dimensional responsibility taxonomy. Occupations have more challenging responsibility characteristics when they are performed with free choice, a level of high physical effort, alone, and with moral consequences.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study yielded the first consensus among PwPD regarding responsibility in occupations as well as a classification system for charting the complexity of responsibility in occupations. The occupation list we have created can be beneficial to health care professionals when providing interventions or conducting outcome assessments. Plain-Language Summary: When planning interventions for patients with Parkinson's disease, it can be helpful for clinicians to be aware of patients' perspectives regarding their sense of responsibility to perform occupations. The use of a systematic sequence of challenging occupations with responsibility attributes ranging from less complex to more complex can help enhance patient occupational participation.

A multicentre prospective evaluation of health-related quality of life and patient related outcomes in pancreatic and peripancreatic cancer: PROMCAN study

BACKGROUND

The temporal evolution of HRQoL and the importance of other PROs to patients, following resection for pancreatic and peripancreatic malignancy remains unexplored.

METHODS

Patients undergoing pancreatic resection between 2021 and 2022 were enrolled from 2 UK HPB centres. Patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-PAN26 tools and rated 56 PROs preoperatively (T1), at discharge (T2), 6-weeks (T3), 3-months (T4) and 6-months (T5) postoperatively. ANOVA followed by post-hoc analysis was used to examine patterns in HRQoL through time. Multivariable ANOVA was used to identify impact of clinical factors on HRQoL.

RESULTS

63 patients were recruited [median age, 72 (IQR 41-85); 39/63 male]. Physical functioning declined from 70.4 (26.2) at T1 to 53.5 (20.9) at T2 (p = 0.016). Global QoL score increased significantly from 41.0 (23.0) at T2 to 60.0 (26.1) at T5 (p = 0.007), as did role functioning [21.1 (27.9) at T2 to 59.4 (32.8) at T5, p < 0.001]. Chemotherapy status and the postoperative complications did not significantly change HRQoL. General QoL and health were the only PROs rated as 'very important' (scores 7-9) by more than 80 % of participants at five time-points.

CONCLUSION

Recuperation of HRQoL measures is seen at 6-months postoperative and was not affected by chemotherapy or postoperative complications. Notably, PROs important to patients varied over time.

Support Through Remote Observation and Nutrition Guidance (STRONG), a digital health intervention to reduce malnutrition among pancreatic cancer patients: A study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Malnutrition is a common and distressing condition among pancreatic cancer patients. Fewer than a quarter of pancreatic cancer patients receive medical nutrition therapy (MNT), important for improving nutritional status, weight maintenance, quality of life and survival. System, provider, and patient level barriers limit access to MNT. We propose to examine the feasibility of a 12-week multi-level, digital health intervention designed to expand MNT access among pancreatic cancer patients.

Methods

Individuals with advanced pancreatic cancer starting chemotherapy (N = 80) will be 1:1 randomized to the intervention or usual care. The Support Through Remote Observation and Nutrition Guidance (STRONG) intervention includes system-level (e.g., routine malnutrition and screening), provider-level (e.g., dietitian training and web-based dashboard), and patient-level strategies (e.g., individualized nutrition plan, self-monitoring of dietary intake via Fitbit, ongoing goal monitoring and feedback). Individuals receiving usual care will be referred to dietitians based on their oncologists' discretion. Study assessments will be completed at baseline, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-weeks.

Results

Primary outcomes will be feasibility (e.g., recruitment, retention, assessment completion) and acceptability. We will collect additional implementation outcomes, such as intervention adherence, perceived usability, and feedback on intervention quality via an exit interview. We will collect preliminary data on outcomes that may be associated with the intervention including malnutrition, quality of life, treatment outcomes, and survival.

Conclusion

This study will advance our knowledge on the feasibility of a digital health intervention to reduce malnutrition among individuals with advanced pancreatic cancer. Trial registration: NCT05675059, registered on December 9, 2022.

Patient and caregiver perspectives of select non-communicable diseases in India: A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported measures of encounters in healthcare settings and consideration of their preferences could provide valuable inputs to improve healthcare quality. Although there are increasing reports of user experiences regarding health care in India in recent times, there is a lack of evidence from Indian healthcare settings on the care provided for patients with chronic diseases.

METHODS

We selected diabetes mellitus and cancer as representatives of two common conditions requiring different care pathways. We conducted a scoping review of studies reporting experiences or preferences of patients/caregivers for these conditions, in PubMed, Global Index Medicus and grey literature, from the year 2000 onwards. Both published and emergent themes were derived from the data and summarised as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Of 95 included studies (49 diabetes, 46 cancer), 73% (65) were exclusively quantitative surveys, 79% included only patients (75), and 59.5% (44) were conducted in government centres. Studies were concentrated in a few states in India, with the underrepresentation of vulnerable population groups and representative studies. There was a lack of standardised tools and comprehensive approaches for assessing experiences and preferences of patients and caregivers, concerning diabetes and cancers in India. The commonest type of care assessed was therapeutic (74), with 14 cancer studies on diagnosis and nine on palliative care. Repeated visits to crowded centres, drug refill issues, unavailability of specific services in government facilities, and expensive private care characterised diabetes care, while cancer care involved delayed diagnosis and treatment, communication, and pain management issues.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for robust approaches and standardised tools to measure responsiveness of the healthcare system to patient needs, across geographical and population subgroups in India. Health system reforms are needed to improve access to high-quality care for treatment and palliation of cancer and management of chronic diseases such as diabetes.

A modified Delphi study to identify which items should be evaluated in shoulder instability research: a first step in developing a core outcome set

Background

The aim of this study was to identify items that healthcare providers and/or patients consider important to include in a questionnaire for clinical trials and cohort studies in shoulder instability research. This could serve as a basis to develop a core outcome set for shoulder instability research.

Methods

Healthcare providers and patients were included in a panel for a modified Delphi consensus study. The study consisted of three rounds, comprising (1) identifying items, (2) rating the importance of the items, and (3) rating the importance again after seeing a summary of the results of round two. Importance was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or higher.

Results

In total, 44 healthcare providers and 30 patients completed all three rounds. Round one identified 54 items. After round three, the panel reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire, comprising re-dislocation (99%), instable feeling of the shoulder (96%), limitations during sport (93%), patient satisfaction with the shoulder (93%), fear/anxiety for re-dislocation (91%), range of motion (88%), return to old level of functioning (85%), performing daily activities (85%), return to sport (82%), return to work (82%), and trusting the shoulder (81%).

Conclusion

Healthcare providers and patients reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire for shoulder instability research. These items can facilitate design and development of future clinical trials and form the basis for the development of a core outcome set.

Academic pharmacist competencies in ordinary and emergency situations: content validation and pilot description in Lebanese academia

BACKGROUND

In the absence of a similar study in the Lebanese context, this study aimed to validate the content of the specialized competencies frameworks of academic pharmacists (educators, researchers, and clinical preceptors) and pilot their use for practice assessment in the context of multiple severe crises.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted between March and September 2022 among academic pharmacists enrolled by snowball sampling using a questionnaire created on Google Forms.

RESULTS

The suggested frameworks had appropriate content to assess the competencies of academic pharmacists. Educators and clinical preceptors were confident in all their competencies except for emergency preparedness. Researchers had varying levels of confidence, ranging from moderate to high confidence for many competencies, but gaps were reported in fundamental research, conducting clinical trials, and pharmacy practice research (mean < 80). Educators and researchers relied primarily on experience and postgraduate studies, while clinical preceptors emphasized undergraduate studies to acquire their respective competencies. Continuing education sessions/programs were the least cited as a competency-acquiring venue across all roles.

CONCLUSION

This study could develop and validate the content of frameworks for specialized competencies of academic pharmacists, including educators, researchers, and clinical preceptors, in a challenging setting. The frameworks were also piloted for practice assessment, which could contribute to supporting effective performance and sustained development of practitioners and help link the skills and competencies pharmacists learn during their studies with those required for a career in academia.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Total Pancreatectomy as an Alternative to Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at High Risk for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: Is it a Justifiable Indication?

OBJECTIVE

Examine the potential benefit of total pancreatectomy (TP) as an alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

TP is mentioned as an alternative to PD in patients at high risk for POPF, but a systematic review is lacking.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses using Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library to identify studies published up to October 2022, comparing elective single-stage TP for any indication versus PD in patients at high risk for POPF. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) on the short-term and quality of life.

RESULTS

After screening 1212 unique records, five studies with 707 patients (334 TP and 373 high-risk PD) met the eligibility criteria, comprising one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies. The 90-day mortality after TP and PD did not differ (6.3% vs. 6.2%; RR=1.04 [95%CI 0.56-1.93]). Major morbidity rate was lower after TP compared to PD (26.7% vs. 38.3%; RR=0.65 [95%CI 0.48-0.89]), but no significance was seen in matched/randomized studies (29.0% vs. 36.9%; RR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.48-1.10]). Two studies investigated quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) at a median of 30-52 months, demonstrating comparable global health status after TP and PD (77% [±15] vs. 76% [±20]; P =0.857).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis found no reduction in short-term mortality and major morbidity after TP as compared to PD in patients at high risk for POPF. However, if TP is used as a bail-out procedure, the comparable long-term quality of life is reassuring.

Familial pancreatic cancer: a case study and review of the psychosocial effects of diagnoses on families

BACKGROUND

Familial pancreatic cancer touches families through a genetic susceptibility to developing this neoplasia. Genetic susceptibility is assessed via family history, genetic testing, or both. Individuals with two or more first-degree relatives or three or more relatives of any degree diagnosed with pancreatic cancer are considered at elevated risk. Following a diagnosis of familial pancreatic cancer, patients and families face uncertainty and anxiety about the future. Psychosocial effects of a pancreatic cancer diagnosis on families include fear, concerns about personal health, and how lifestyle may impact the risk of developing pancreatic cancer.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 66-year-old male was diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma stage IIB, T3, N1, M0. A genetic referral was made due to a history of multiple cases of pancreatic cancer within the patient's family. Genetic testing revealed the patient had a pathogenic variant in the ATM gene that is associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer development. The patient's one adult child was offered testing due to the autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance for this variant. The adult child was found to have the same pathogenic variant. She expressed fear for her future and her child's future health and longevity. Discussing a case study allows us to capture the multi-faceted relationship between the disease, the affected individuals, and their families. Examining the psychosocial stresses and concerns when there is a pancreatic cancer diagnosis in the family is essential to provide holistic care to patients and families.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychosocial effects of FPC may be overwhelming for patients and families. Healthcare providers can offer education, support, and referrals to appropriate services to help families cope through stages of evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of FPC.

Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: What Matters to Patients?

Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death, with a poor overall survival rate. Although certain risk factors have been identified, the origins of pancreatic cancer are still not fully understood. Surgical resection remains the primary curative treatment, but pancreatic surgery is still associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, and most patients will experience recurrence. The impact of pancreatic cancer on patients' quality of life is significant, with an important loss of healthy life in affected individuals. Traditional outcome parameters, such as length of hospital stay, do not fully capture what matters to patients during recovery. Patient-centered care is therefore central, and the patient's perspective should be considered in pre-operative discussions. Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) could play an important role in assessing patient perspectives, but standardized methodology for evaluating and reporting them is needed. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of patient perspectives and different patient-reported measures in pancreatic cancer surgery. Understanding the patient perspective is crucial for delivering patient-centered care and improving outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Management of pain and cachexia in pancreatic cancer: Protocol for two systematic reviews, network meta-analysis, surveys and focus groups (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

 Approximately 75% of people with pancreatic cancer experience pain, and >50% of them have cachexia (weakness and wasting of the body). However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the management of these distressing symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

 Our primary objectives are to compare the relative benefits and harms of different interventions for pain in people with unresectable pancreatic cancer and for prevention and treatment of cachexia due to pancreatic cancer, through systematic reviews and network meta-analysis. Our secondary objectives are to develop an evidence-based clinical care pathway to manage pain and prevent and treat cachexia in people with pancreatic cancer through surveys and focus groups involving patients, carers, and health care professionals.

METHODS

 We will perform 2 systematic reviews of the literature related to pain and cachexia in people with pancreatic cancer using searches from Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and trial registries. Two researchers will independently screen for eligibility and identify randomized controlled trials (no language or publication status restriction), comparing interventions for pain or cachexia based on full-texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess risk of bias in the trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 2.0) and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, potential effect modifiers and outcome data related to overall survival, health-related quality of life, treatment-related complications, and resource utilisation. We aim to conduct network meta-analysis on outcomes with multiple treatment comparisons where possible, otherwise, meta-analysis with direct comparisons, or narrative synthesis. We will perform various subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Using information obtained from both systematic reviews, we will conduct 2 surveys: one directed to patients or carers to assess acceptability of interventions, and the other to health care professionals to assess feasibility of delivery in the National Health Service. Four mixed focus groups will be conducted to evaluate findings and foster consensus in the development of the care pathway.

RESULTS

 Funding was awarded from April 2022 (NIHR202727). Both systematic review protocols were prospectively registered on PROSPERO in May 2022. Formal searches began thereafter. Approval by the University College London Research Ethics Committee (23563/001) was received in December 2022. Data collection began in January 2023; data analysis will begin in May 2023 (completion expected by October 2023).

CONCLUSIONS

 This study will comprehensively encompass major interventions for management of pain in people with unresectable pancreatic cancer, and prevention and treatment of cachexia in people with pancreatic cancer. Key stakeholders will facilitate the development of an evidence-based care pathway, ensuring both acceptability and feasibility. The project ends in April 2024 and published results are expected within 12 months of completion. We aim to present the findings through patient group websites, conferences, and publications, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/46335.

Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.

Association of robotic approach with patient-reported outcomes after pancreatectomy: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatectomy continues to proliferate despite limited evidence supporting its benefits from the patient's perspective. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing robotic and open pancreatectomies.

METHODS

PROs, measured with the FACT-Hep, FACT-G, and HCS, were assessed in the immediate postoperative (i.e., preoperative to discharge) and recovery (i.e., discharge to three months postoperative) periods. Linear mixed models estimated the association of operative approach on PROs. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also considered.

RESULTS

Among 139 patients, 105 (75.5%) underwent robotic pancreatectomies. Compared to those who underwent open operations, those who underwent robotic operations experienced worse FACT-Hep scores that were both statistically and clinically significant (mean difference [MD] 8.6 points, 95% CI 1.0-16.3). Declines in FACT-G (MD 4.3, 95% CI -1.0 to 9.6) and HCS (MD 4.3, 95% CI 0.8-7.9) scores appeared to contribute equally in both operative approaches to the decline in total FACT-Hep score. Patients who underwent robotic versus open operations both statistically and clinically significantly improved due to improvements in HCS (MD 6.1, 95% CI 2.3-9.9) but not in FACT-G (MD 1.2, 95% CI - 5.1-7.4).

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach to pancreas surgery might offer, from the patient's perspective, greater improvement in symptoms over the open approach by three months postoperatively.

What adults with ADHD want to know: A Delphi consensus study on the psychoeducational needs of experts by experience

Introduction

A lack of knowledge about attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can contribute to feelings of distress and difficulty in seeking and accepting an ADHD diagnosis. The present study uses a Delphi consensus design to investigate the psychoeducational needs of adults with ADHD and the information about ADHD they would like included in digital health interventions for adults with ADHD. Inclusion of perspectives of service users in developing such interventions ensures that they are evidence based and addresses the risks of engagement barriers.

Methods

The expert panel consisted of 43 adults with ADHD (age range: 23–67 years). Panel members were asked to rate the importance of the proposed topics and provide additional suggestions. Suggested topics and topics that did not achieve consensus were included for ranking in the second round.

Results

Interquartile ratings were used to determine consensus. A high consensus was achieved in both rounds, with an agreement on 94% of topics in the first round and 98% in the second round. Most topics were rated as important or essential.

Conclusions

The findings highlighted that adults with ADHD want to learn about many different aspects of ADHD and the importance of considering their perspectives when developing psychosocial interventions. Findings can be applied when creating psychoeducational content for adult ADHD.

Patient or Public Contribution

Adults with ADHD were recruited to the Delphi panel to use an experts‐by‐experience approach. In doing so, we are engaging service users in the development of a psychoeducational smartphone app. The evaluation of the app will involve interviews with app users. Additionally, the present study was developed and conducted with ADHD Ireland, a charity based in Ireland that advocates for people with ADHD.

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

Establishing the content validity of a new emergency department patient-reported experience measure (ED PREM): a Delphi study

Background

Patient-reported experience measures aim to capture the patient’s perspective of what happened during a care encounter and how it happened. However, due to a lack of guidance to support patient-reported experience measure development and reporting, the content validity of many instruments is unclear and ambiguous. Thus, the aim of this study was to establish the content validity of a newly developed Emergency Department Patient-Reported Experience Measure (ED PREM).

Methods

ED PREM items were developed based on the findings of a systematic mixed studies review, and qualitative interviews with Emergency Department patients that occurred during September and October, 2020. Individuals who participated in the qualitative interviews were approached again during August 2021 to participate in the ED PREM content validation study. The preliminary ED PREM comprised 37 items. A two-round modified, online Delphi study was undertaken where patient participants were asked to rate the clarity, relevance, and importance of ED PREM items on a 4-point content validity index scale. Each round lasted for two-weeks, with 1 week in between for analysis. Consensus was a priori defined as item-level content validity index scores of ≥0.80. A scale-level content validity index score was also calculated.

Results

Fifteen patients participated in both rounds of the online Delphi study. At the completion of the study, two items were dropped and 13 were revised, resulting in a 35-item ED PREM. The scale-level content validity index score for the final 35-item instrument was 0.95.

Conclusions

The newly developed ED PREM demonstrates good content validity and aligns strongly with the concept of Emergency Department patient experience as described in the literature. The ED PREM will next be administered in a larger study to establish its’ construct validity and reliability. There is an imperative for clear guidance on PREM content validation methodologies. Thus, this study may inform the efforts of other researchers undertaking PREM content validation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-022-00617-5.

Evolving pancreatic cancer treatment: From diagnosis to healthcare management

The prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is still the worst among solid tumors. In this review, a panel of experts addressed the main unanswered questions about the clinical management of this disease, with the aim of providing practical decision support for physicians. On the basis of the evidence available from the literature, the main topics concerning pancreatic cancer are discussed: the diagnosis, as the need for a pathological characterization and the role for germ-line and somatic molecular profiling; the therapeutic management of resectable disease, as the role of upfront surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the post-operative restaging and the optimal timing foradjuvant chemotherapy, the management of the borderline resectable and locally advanced disease; the metastatic disease and the role of surgery for the management of patients with isolated metastasis and the use of biomarkers of metastatic potential; the role of supportive care and the healthcare management of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Secondary analysis of data from a core outcome set for burns demonstrated the need for involvement of lower income countries

Objective

To compare the views of participants from different income-status countries on outcome selection for a burn care Core Outcome Set (COS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data collected during a two round Delphi survey to prioritise the most important outcomes in burn care research.

Results

There was considerable agreement between participants from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) across outcomes. The groups agreed on 91% of 88 outcomes in round 1 and 92% of 100 in round 2. In cases of discordance, the consensus of participants from LMICs was to include the outcome and for participants from HICs to exclude. There was also considerable agreement between the groups for the top-ten ranking outcomes. Discordance in outcome prioritisation gives an insight into the different values clinicians from LMICs place on outcomes compared to those from HICs. Limitations of the study were that outcome rankings from international patients were not available. Healthcare professionals from LMICs were not involved in the final consensus meeting.

Conclusion

COS developers should consider the need for a COS to be global at protocol stage. Global COS should include equal representation from both LMICs and HICs at all stages of development.

Patient-Centeredness in Older Adults With Multimorbidity: Results of an Online Expert Delphi Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Older adults suffering from multimorbidity represent a priority target group for patient-centeredness (PC). We aimed to investigate the transferability of an existing integrated model of PC comprising 15 dimensions on the care of older adults with multimorbidity from an expert perspective.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 242 experts were invited to participate in a 2-round online Delphi study. In round 1, they were asked to (a) individually rate relevance and clarity of the dimensions, (b) add missing dimensions, and (c) prioritize the dimensions. In round 2, experts received results of round 1 and were asked to rerate their ratings.

RESULTS

Forty-eight experts participated in round 1 and 39 in round 2. Ten dimensions were rated as sufficiently relevant and clear, including one new dimension ("prognosis and life expectancy, burden of treatment"). Four dimensions were rated as relevant but insufficiently clear. One dimension failed to reach our validation threshold on both criteria. The 5 dimensions rated as most important were: "patient as a unique person," "clinician-patient communication," "patient involvement in care," "physical, cognitive, and emotional support," and "involvement of family and friends."

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The experts' ratings were higher regarding relevance than regarding clarity, which emphasizes the still existing conceptual uncertainty of PC. Our results give further directions regarding the operationalization of PC in older adults with multimorbidity, which is essential for its implementation in routine care. Further refined using focus groups with geriatric patients, our adapted model serves as a basis for a systematic review of assessment instruments.

UEG position paper on pancreatic cancer. Bringing pancreatic cancer to the 21st century: Prevent, detect, and treat the disease earlier and better

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is the deadliest cancer worldwide with a 98% loss-of-life expectancy and a 30% increase in the disability-adjusted life years during the last decade in Europe. The disease cannot be effectively prevented nor being early detected. When diagnosed, 80% of patients have tumors that are in incurable stages, while for those who undergo surgery, 80% of patients will present with local or distant metastasis. Importantly, chemotherapies are far from being effective.

OBJECTIVE

Pancreatic cancer represents a great challenge and, at the same time, a huge opportunity for advancing our understanding on the basis of the disease, the molecular profiles, that would lead to develop tools for early detection and effective treatments, thus, boosting patient survival.

RESULTS

Research on pancreatic cancer has being receiving little or minimal funds from European funding bodies. UEG is calling for public-private partnerships that would effectively fund research on pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

This would increase our understanding of this disease and better treatment, through pan-European efforts that take advantage of the strong academic European research landscape on pancreatic cancer, and the contribution by the industry of all sizes.

Achieving 'Marginal Gains' to Optimise Outcomes in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

Simple Summary

Improving outcomes in pancreatic cancer is achievable through the accumulation of marginal gains. There exists evidence of variation and undertreatment in many areas of the care pathway. By fully realising the existing opportunities, there is the potential for immediate improvements in outcomes and quality of life.

Abstract

Improving outcomes among patients with resectable pancreatic cancer is one of the greatest challenges of modern medicine. Major improvements in survival will result from the development of novel therapies. However, optimising existing pathways, so that patients realise benefits of already proven treatments, presents a clear opportunity to improve outcomes in the short term. This narrative review will focus on treatments and interventions where there is a clear evidence base to improve outcomes in pancreatic cancer, and where there is also evidence of variation and under-treatment. Avoidance of preoperative biliary drainage, treatment of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, prehabiliation and enhanced recovery after surgery, reducing perioperative complications, optimising opportunities for elderly patients to receive therapy, optimising adjuvant chemotherapy and regular surveillance after surgery are some of the strategies discussed. Each treatment or pathway change represents an opportunity for marginal gain. Accumulation of marginal gains can result in considerable benefit to patients. Given that these interventions already have evidence base, they can be realised quickly and economically.

Changes in postoperative long-term nutritional status and quality of life after total pancreatectomy

Purpose

Quality of life (QoL) is widely known to be poor after total pancreatectomy (TP) due to the loss of pancreatic function and poor nutritional status, but prospective studies on changes in QoL over time are lacking. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the short- and long-term consequences of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, changes in nutritional status, and their associated effects on QoL after TP.

Methods

Prospective data were collected from patients who underwent TP between 2008 and 2018. Validated questionnaires (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ] Core 30, EORTC QLQ-pancreatic cancer module, and the Mini Nutritional Assessment), measured frequency of bowel movement, relative body weight (RBW), triceps skinfold thickness (TSFT), and serum levels of protein, albumin, transferrin, and hemoglobin A1c were collected serially for 1 year.

Results

Thirty patients who underwent TP were eligible for the study. Bowel movement frequency increased over time, and the RBW and TSFT were lowest by 1 year. The global health status score showed no significant difference over time. At 3 months, physical and role function scores as well as symptoms of fatigue, constipation, and digestive difficulties worsened significantly. Most indices recovered after 1 year, but poorer physical function scores, digestive difficulties, and altered bowel habits persisted.

Conclusion

Because some symptoms do not recover over time, careful follow-up and supportive postoperative management are needed for TP patients, including nutritional support with pancreatic enzyme replacement and education about medication adherence and diet.

Assessment of the Long-Term Impact of Pancreatoduodenectomy on Health-Related Quality of Life Using the EORTC QLQ-PAN26 Module

BACKGROUND

Long-term pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) survivors have previously reported favorable quality of life (QoL). However, there has been a paucity of studies utilizing pancreas-specific modules for QoL assessment, which may uncover disability that general modules cannot detect.

METHODS

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires were administered to PD survivors who were at least 5 years out of their operations for neoplasms (1998-2011, study cohort) and compared their scores with published preoperative scores of patients with pancreatic cancer (control cohort). The clinical relevance (CR) of differences was scored as small (5-10), moderate (10-20), or large (> 20) based on validated interpretation of clinically important differences.

RESULTS

Of 1266 patients who underwent PD, there were 305 survivors with valid contact information, of whom 248 responded to the questionnaire (response rate 81.3%) and made up the study cohort. The median follow-up was 9.1 years (range 5.1-21.2 years). When compared with the control cohort, patients in the study cohort reported higher pancreatic pain (41.7 ± 17.6 vs. 18.1 ± 20.5, p < 0.001, CR large), sexuality dissatisfaction (63.0 ± 37.5 vs. 35.1 ± 34.3, p < 0.001, CR large), altered bowel habits (37.6 ± 30.6 vs. 20.0 ± 24.5, p < 0.001, CR moderate), and digestive symptoms (26.3 ± 29.5 vs. 18.7 ± 27.8, p = 0.002, CR small) scores. There was a higher prevalence of bloating, indigestion, and flatulence, but lower prevalence of future health worry (71.7% vs. 89.6%, p < 0.001) and limitation in planning activities (30.1% vs. 48.3%, p < 0.001) at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

While post-PD patients had better long-term global QoL than healthy controls, a more granular, pancreas-specific questionnaire uncovered digestive abnormalities and sexuality dissatisfaction. These data can better inform clinical decision making and provide potential areas for improvement and patient support.

Benchmarking Performance in Pancreatic Surgery: a Systematic Review of Published Quality Metrics

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery is performed in relatively few centres. There are validated quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery, although it remains unclear how published benchmarks compare with each other. This study aimed to systematically review published literature to summarise metrics that define quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery.

METHOD

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was undertaken until June 2019. Articles that developed or validated published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery were included. Benchmarks were classified into three domains using the Donabedian framework, and their quality assessed using the AIRE Instrument.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies included 55 quality metrics, of which 8 developed new metrics, and 11 studies validated previously published metrics. The methodology of metric development was either expert opinion-driven or data-driven. All metrics demonstrated moderate quality scores. There was partial agreement in some metrics (e.g. < 10 h total operative duration), but lack of consensus for most others (e.g. lymph node yield ≥ 10, ≥ 12, ≥ 15, ≥ 16). No metrics related to patient reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Published quality benchmarks for pancreatic surgery predominantly arise from eight studies, with heterogeneity in how the metrics were developed. There was not consensus for all metrics. Metrics need to be reviewed as new data emerge, technologies develop and opinions change.

The potential use for patient reported outcome measures in people with pancreatic cancer, with a specific focus on older patients

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies and is characterised by high-unmet physical and psychological supportive care needs. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) represent a patient centred approach to address the high unmet supportive care need and improve the quality of care. PROMs have the potential to inform patients about the quality of life and symptom trajectory for different treatment approaches so that they can fully participate in shared decisions about treatment. Embedding the collection of PROMs into routine practice alongside clinical alerts and directed symptom interventions is acceptable and feasible for people with pancreatic cancer and has the potential to reduce symptom burden. There is also limited information on survival, quality of life and the holistic impact of treatment for older pancreatic cancer patients, therefore, PROMs provide an opportunity to understand the impact of treatment on older patients and better inform shared treatment decision-making.

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes for Pancreatic Carcinoma: An International Delphi Survey

BACKGROUND

Global health systems are shifting toward value-based health care to improve patient outcomes in the face of rising health care costs. The challenge is to identify standardized outcome measurements that allow optimal quality-of-care monitoring and comparison to optimize medical practices and patient pathways. A common outcomes definition is required, including medical results (Clinical Reported Outcomes Measurements [CROMs]) and quality-of-life components that matter most to patients (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements [PROMs]), which are particularly important for severe pathologies with short life expectancy such as pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to create standardized metrics that could be used for outcomes analysis of pancreatic cancer care.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group (WG) was assembled. A systematic review was performed to collect the most used outcomes in clinical studies of pancreatic cancers. The study reviewed 570 studies published in the last 10 years. From these studies, 3370 outcomes, including CROMs, and PROMs, were listed and prioritized. The WG reached a consensus on key outcomes, proposed groupings for CROMs and PROMs, identified existing questionnaires that could be used for PROMs collection, and set the timeline for data collection. To refine and validate the final outcomes set, an international external committee completed a Delphi process (two rounds for both CROMS and PROMs).

RESULTS

After the systematic literature review, the WG selected 102 outcomes (92 CROMs and 10 PROMs) for submission to the international Delphi vote committee. The committee retrained 89 outcomes (78 CROMs and 11 PROMs). For the PROMs, the WG and the international external committee chose a validated questionnaire, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary, which covers all of the 11 selected PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized set of outcome measures that need to be validated through international health outcome comparisons and quality-of-care assessments was built. Pilot projects are underway to test and optimize the approach in real-life conditions.

Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Protocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Delphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.

RESULTS

Of 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138519.

Efficacy of mistletoe extract as a complement to standard treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: study protocol for a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial (MISTRAL)

Background

Most pancreatic cancer patients present with advanced stage at diagnosis with extremely short expected survival and few treatment options. A multimodal palliative approach is necessary for symptom relief and optimisation of health-related quality of life. In a recent open-label trial of mistletoe extract for advanced pancreatic cancer patients not eligible for chemotherapy, promising results on improved overall survival and better health-related quality of life were reported.

The objective of the present study is to assess the value of mistletoe extract as a complement to standard treatment (palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care) in advanced pancreatic cancer patients with regard to overall survival and health-related quality of life.

Methods

The trial is prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel group and placebo-controlled. In total, 290 participants are randomly assigned to placebo or mistletoe extract given subcutaneously in increasing dosage from 0.01 to 20 mg three times per week for 9 months. Stratification is performed for site and palliative chemotherapy. Main inclusion criteria are advanced pancreatic cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2; main exclusion criteria are life expectancy less than 4 weeks and neuroendocrine tumour of the pancreas. Two ancillary studies on sub-sets of participants are nested in the trial: a biomarker study collecting blood samples and a cross-sectional qualitative study with semi-structured face-to-face interviews.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first placebo-controlled randomised trial assessing the impact of mistletoe extract as a complement to standard treatment on overall survival and health-related quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The presented trial with its two nested ancillary studies exploring biomarkers and patient experiences is expected to give new insights into the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Trial registration

EU Clinical Trial Register, EudraCT Number 2014-004552-64. Registered on 19 January 2016.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02948309. Registered on 28 October 2016.

Systematic review of patient reported outcomes (PROs) and quality of life measures after pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) constitutes a recently described surgical technique to administer chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum, under pressure, for patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM). The purpose of an oncological treatment is to improve survival but without altering the patient's quality of life. The aim of this review was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after PIPAC for patients with PM. This systematic review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2020, studies were selected according to the following criteria: "pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy" OR "PIPAC" AND "patient-reported outcomes" OR "PRO" OR "Quality of life". In this review, 959 PIPAC and five PITAC (Pressurized IntraThoracic Aerosol Chemotherapy) were performed in 425 patients. We highlight the prominent application of generic EORTC QLQ-C30 followed by SF-36 in this review. The PROs according to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health score and based on symptom and function scores were stable across most studies. Moreover, PIPAC has improved the PRO of altered patients in two studies. Among 425 patients, the mortality rate was 0.7% and adverse events of Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events grade 3 and grade 4 were 9.6% and 1.6%, respectively. We synthesised current research on PROs among patients with PM. This review increases our understanding of the PIPAC strategy from the patient perspective. The implementation of PROs can be complex but will be essential in delivering quality care.

Priority Rankings of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Comparison of Patient and Physician Perspectives

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with high symptom burden. However, treatment decisions currently depend heavily on physician interpretation of clinical parameters and may not consider patients’ health preferences. The NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative standardized a set of patient-reported outcomes for use in chronic diseases. This study identifies preference rankings among patients with PDAC and physicians for PROMIS domains and compares the priorities of patients and their providers. Methods: We condensed the 96 NIH PROMIS adult domains into 31 domains and created a Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire. Domain preference scores were generated from the responses of patients with PDAC and physicians, which were compared using Maximum Difference Scaling software across demographic and clinical variables. Results: Participants included 135 patients with PDAC (53% male; median age, 68 years) and 54 physicians (76% male; median years of experience, 10). Patients selected physical functioning (PF) as their top priority, whereas physicians identified pain as most important. PF, ability to perform activities of daily living, and symptom management were within the top 5 domains for both patients and physicians, and varied only slightly across age, sex, and ethnicity. However, several domains were ranked significantly higher by patients than by physicians, including but not limited to PF; ability to do things for yourself, family, and friends; ability to interact with others to obtain help; and sleep quality. Physicians ranked pain, anxiety, and depression higher than patients did. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that patients with PDAC value PF and engaging in daily and social activities the most, whereas physicians prioritize symptoms such as pain. Patient-reported outcomes need to become more integrated into PDAC care and research to better identify unmet patient needs, inform treatment decisions, and develop therapies that address outcomes valued by patients.

COMMUNI.CARE (COMMUNIcation and Patient Engagement at Diagnosis of PAncreatic CAncer): Study Protocol

Background: In many cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the diagnosis comes as a surprise to the patient, who often faces a disease that is already at an advanced stage, with poor prognosis. The clinical visit during which the diagnosis is communicated together with the first information regarding the planned treatments is of paramount importance. We hypothesize that the clarity of such information can influence patients' engagement and thus their level of compliance.

Aims: This study aims to collect (a) quantitative data on the level of PDAC patient engagement, (b) data on the rate of understanding of the information received from the doctor, and (c) data on level of compliance; the possible associations between these variables will be analyzed.

Methods: This is a single-center, observational, cross-sectional cohort study on patients diagnosed with PDAC, approved by the Ethics Committee of the San Raffaele Hospital. As no preliminary data are available on the association between PDAC patients' understanding rate and their level of engagement and of compliance, no power calculation is possible. This is a pilot study, aimed at enrolling at least 45 PDAC patients during a period of 3 months.

Conclusion: COMMUNIcation and Patient Engagement at Diagnosis of PAncreatic CAncer (COMMUNI. CARE) will be the first study specifically investigating whether there is a relation between PDAC patients' engagement, rate of understanding at the time of diagnosis, and compliance.

Effects of Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy on Body Weight and Nutritional Assessments After Pancreatoduodenectomy in a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We studied the effects of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) on body weight, nutritional status, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind trial of 304 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy at 7 tertiary referral hospitals in South Korea. Patients with fecal levels of elastase of 200 μg/g or less, before and after surgery, were assigned randomly to groups that received PERT (a single capsule of 40,000 IU pancreatin, Norzyme (40,000 IU, Pankreatan; Nordmark Arzneimittel GmbH & Co, Uetersen, Germany), 3 times each day during meals for 3 months; n = 151) or placebo (n = 153). Protocol completion was defined as taking more than two thirds of the total dose without taking other digestive enzymes; the protocol was completed by 71 patients in the PERT group and 93 patients in the placebo group. Patients underwent a physical examination, oral glucose tolerance tests, and blood tests at baseline and at month 3 of the study period. The primary end point was change in body weight. Secondary end points were changes in bowel habits, nutritional parameters, and QoL.

RESULTS

In the per-protocol analysis, 3 months after the study began, patients in the PERT group gained a mean of 1.09 kg in weight and patients in the placebo group lost a mean of 2.28 kg (difference between groups, 3.37 kg; P < .001). However, no difference in body weight was observed between groups in the intent-to-treat analysis. Three months after the study began, the mean serum levels of prealbumin increased by 10.9 mg/dL in the PERT group and increased by 7.8 mg/dL in the placebo group (P = .002). Poor compliance to PERT was a significant risk factor for weight loss (P < .001). There was no significant difference in QoL scores between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the intent-to-treat analysis of data from a randomized trial, we found no significant effect of PERT on mean body weights of patients with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency after pancreatoduodenectomy. However, with active education and monitoring, PERT could increase body weight and nutritional parameters. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02127021.

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The need for patient-centered research

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive cancer with high recurrence rates following surgical resection. While adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival, a significant proportion of patients are unable to initiate or complete all intended therapy following pancreatectomy due to postoperative complications or poor performance status. The administration of chemotherapy prior to surgical resection is an alternative strategy that ensures its early and near universal delivery as well as improves margin-negative resection rates and potentially improves long-term survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being recommended to patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, however, patient-centered research on its use is lacking. In this review, we highlight opportunities to focus research efforts in the domains of patient preferences, patient-reported outcomes, patient experience, and survivorship. Novel research in these areas may identify relevant barriers and facilitators to the use of neoadjuvant therapy thereby increasing its utilization, improve shared-decision making for patients and providers, and optimize the experience of those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy.

Assessing the relevance and implementation of patient-centredness from the patients' perspective in Germany: results of a Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Patient-centredness (PC) has particularly grown in relevance in health services research as well as in politics and there has been much research on its conceptualisation. However, conceptual work neglected the patients' perspective. Thus, it remains unclear which dimensions of PC matter most to patients. This study aims to assess relevance and current degree of implementation of PC from the perspective of chronically ill patients in Germany.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi study. Patients were recruited throughout Germany using community-based strategies (eg, newspapers and support groups). In round 1, patients rated relevance and implementation of 15 dimensions of PC anonymously. In round 2, patients received results of round 1 and were asked to re-rate their own results. Participants had to have at least one of the following chronic diseases: cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder. Furthermore, patients had to be at least 18 years old and had to give informed consent prior to participation.

RESULTS

226 patients participated in round 1, and 214 patients in round 2. In both rounds, all 15 dimensions were rated highly relevant, but currently insufficiently implemented. Most relevant dimensions included 'patient safety', 'access to care' and 'patient information'. Due to small sizes of subsamples between chronic disease groups, differences could not be computed. For the other subgroups (eg, single disease vs multi-morbidity), there were no major differences.

CONCLUSION

This is one of the first studies assessing PC from patients' perspective in Germany. We showed that patients consider every dimension of PC relevant, but currently not well implemented. Our results can be used to foster PC healthcare delivery and to develop patient-reported experience measures to assess PC of healthcare in Germany.

Population-Level Symptom Assessment Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Adenocarcinoma

Importance

Postoperative morbidity associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) remains as high as 70%. However, to our knowledge, few studies have examined quality of life in this patient population.

Objective

To identify symptom burden and trajectories and factors associated with high symptom burden following PD for PA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study of patients undergoing PD for PA diagnosed between 2009 and 2015 linked population-level administrative health care data to routinely prospectively collected Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores from 2009 to 2015, with a data analysis undertaken in 2018.

Exposures

Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, income quintile, rurality, immigration status, and comorbidity burden, as well as treatment characteristics, including year of surgery and receipt of chemotherapy.

Main Outcome and Measures

The outcome of interest was moderate to severe symptoms (defined as ESAS ≥4) for anxiety, depression, drowsiness, lack of appetite, nausea, pain, shortness of breath, tiredness, and impaired well-being. The monthly prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms was presented graphically for each symptom. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with the reporting of moderate to severe symptoms.

Results

We analyzed 6058 individual symptom assessments among 615 patients with PA who underwent resection (285 women [46.3%]) with ESAS data. Tiredness (443 [72%]), impaired well-being (418 [68%]), and lack of appetite (400 [65%]) were most commonly reported as moderate to severe. The proportion of patients with moderate to severe symptoms was highest immediately after surgery (range, 14%-66% per symptom) and decreased over time, stabilizing around 3 months (range, 8%-42% per symptom). Female sex, higher comorbidity, and lower income were associated with a higher risk of reporting moderate to severe symptoms. Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with the risk of moderate to severe symptoms.

Conclusions and Relevance

There is a high prevalence of symptoms following PD for PA, with improvement over the first 3 months following surgery. In what to our knowledge is the largest cohort reporting on symptom burden for this population, we have identified factors associated with symptom severity. These findings will aid in managing patients' perioperative expectations and designing strategies to improve targeted symptom management.

Pancreatic cancer-A disease in need: Optimizing and integrating supportive care

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy that continues to be challenging to treat. PDAC has the lowest 5-year relative survival rate compared with all other solid tumor malignancies and is expected to become the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2030. Given the high mortality, there is an increasing role for concurrent anticancer and supportive care in the management of patients with PDAC with the aims of maximizing length of life, quality of life, and symptom control. Emerging trends in supportive care that can be integrated into the clinical management of patients with PDAC include standardized supportive care screening, early integration of supportive care into routine cancer care, early implementation of outpatient-based advance care planning, and utilization of electronic patient-reported outcomes for improved symptom management and quality of life. The most common symptoms experienced are nausea, constipation, weight loss, diarrhea, anorexia, and abdominal and back pain. This review article includes current supportive management strategies for these and others. Common disease-related complications include biliary and duodenal obstruction requiring endoscopic procedures and venous thromboembolic events. Patients with PDAC continue to have a poor prognosis. Systemic therapy options are able to palliate the high symptom burden but have a modest impact on overall survival. Early integration of supportive care can lead to improved outcomes.

Timing of palliative care referral and aggressive cancer care toward the end-of-life in pancreatic cancer: a retrospective, single-center observational study

Background

Pancreatic cancer is noted for its late presentation at diagnosis, limited prognosis and physical and psychosocial symptom burden. This study examined associations between timing of palliative care referral (PCR) and aggressive cancer care received by pancreatic cancer patients in the last 30 days of life through a single health service.

Method

A retrospective cohort analysis of end-of-life (EOL) care outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer who died between 2012 and 2016. Key indicators of aggressive cancer care in the last 30 days of life used were: ≥1 emergency department (ED) presentations, acute inpatient/intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and chemotherapy use. We examined time from PCR to death and place of death. Early and late PCR were defined as > 90 and ≤ 90 days before death respectively.

Results

Out of the 278 eligible deaths, 187 (67.3%) were categorized as receiving a late PCR and 91 (32.7%) an early PCR. The median time between referral and death was 48 days. Compared to those receiving early PCR, those with late PCR had: 18.1% (95% CI 6.8–29.4%) more ED presentations; 12.5% (95% CI 1.7–24.8%) more acute hospital admissions; with no differences in ICU admissions. Pain and complications of cancer accounted for the majority of overall ED presentations. Of the 166 patients who received chemotherapy within 30 days of death, 23 (24.5%) had a late PCR and 12 (16.7%) an early PCR, with no association of PCR status either unadjusted or adjusted for age or gender. The majority of patients (55.8%) died at the inpatient palliative care unit.

Conclusion

Our findings reaffirm the benefits of early PCR for pancreatic cancer patients to avoid inappropriate care toward the EOL. We suggest that in modern cancer care, there can sometimes be a need to reconsider the use of the term ‘aggressive cancer care’ at the EOL when the care is appropriately based on an individual patient’s presenting physical and psychosocial needs. Pancreatic cancer patients warrant early PCR but the debate must thus continue as to how we best achieve and benchmark outcomes that are compatible with patient and family needs and healthcare priorities.