Development of a core outcome set for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma trials: identification of core domains and outcomes

Identifying critical quality metrics in Mohs Surgery: A national expert consensus process

BACKGROUND

Amid a movement toward value-based healthcare, increasing emphasis has been placed on outcomes and cost of medical services. To define and demonstrate the quality of services provided by Mohs surgeons, it is important to identify and understand the key aspects of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) that contribute to excellence in patient care.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to develop and identify a comprehensive list of metrics in an initial effort to define excellence in MMS.

METHODS

Mohs surgeons participated in a modified Delphi process to reach a consensus on a list of metrics. Patients were administered surveys to gather patient perspectives.

RESULTS

Twenty-four of the original 66 metrics met final inclusion criteria. Broad support for the initiative was obtained through physician feedback.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of this study include attrition bias across survey rounds and participation at the consensus meeting. Furthermore, the list of metrics is based on expert consensus instead of quality evidence-based outcomes.

CONCLUSION

With the goal of identifying metrics that demonstrate excellence in performance of MMS, this initial effort has shown that Mohs surgeons and patients have unique perspectives and can be engaged in a data-driven approach to help define excellence in the field of MMS.

Incorporation of the 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test to Improve Treatment Decisions in High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients: Case Series and Algorithm

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) has become a significant public health issue due to its rapidly rising incidence and an estimated 1.8 million newly diagnosed cases annually. As with other cancers, treatment decisions for patients with cSCC are based primarily on a patient's risk for poor outcomes. There has been improvement in clinicopathologic factor-based risk assessment approaches, either through informal methods or ever evolving staging approaches. However, these approaches misidentify patients who will eventually have disease progression as low-risk and conversely, over classify patients as high-risk who do not experience relapse. To improve the accuracy of risk assessment for patients with cSCC, the 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test has been validated to show statistically significant stratification of a high-risk cSCC patient's risk of nodal or distant metastasis, independent of currently available risk-assessment methods. The 40-GEP test allows for a more accurate classification of metastatic risk for high-risk cSCC patients, with the aim to influence appropriate allocation of clinician time and therapeutic resources to those patients who will most benefit. The objective of this article is to present a treatment algorithm in which clinicians can easily integrate the results of the 40-GEP test into their current treatment approaches to tailor patient care based on individual tumor biology. The following modalities were considered: surveillance imaging, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), and clinical follow-up. The authors have contributed their own cases for discussion as to how they have seen the beneficial impact of 40-GEP test results in their own practice. Overall, clinicians can identify risk-aligned treatment pathway improvements with the use of the 40-GEP test for challenging to manage, high-risk cSCC patients.

Improvements and advances in core outcome set methodology: proceedings of the CS-COUSIN & COMFA Joint Meeting

A COS is a systematically developed list of outcomes recommended for reporting all studies within a particular disease area. The Cochrane Skin–Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) and the Core Outcome Measures in Food Allergy (COMFA) Initiative Joint Meeting was held virtually on September 23 through 28, 2021. This meeting brought together core outcome set (COS) developers within the domains of dermatology and food allergy, respectively. The meeting assessed the state of COS methodology, provided a forward look, and facilitated the networking of members of individual COS groups. The meeting hosted several expert-led key addresses and focus sessions, in which work was critically discussed, new developments were shared, and groundwork was laid for future projects. The conference emphasized the importance of ongoing COS work to improve patient outcomes and limit research waste.

Protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in melasma

INTRODUCTION

Melasma is a pigmentation disorder of the skin. Characterised by brown to gray-brown patches on the face and neck, the condition predominantly affects women and has been associated with pregnancy, hormonal variation and sun exposure. Melasma can be disfiguring and anxiety-provoking, and quality of life is often adversely impacted. Management includes sun protection, laser and energy device therapy, topical and oral skin-bleaching agents and chemical peels. While clinical trials of melasma exist, there is a lack of consistency in reported outcomes, which has been a barrier to the aggregation of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This protocol describes a planned process for development of a minimum set of outcomes (ie, 'core outcome set') that should be measured in all clinical trials of melasma.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An exhaustive list of potential outcomes will be extracted from four sources: (1) systematic literature review of outcomes in clinical trials; (2) semistructured patient interviews; (3) brochures, pamphlets, clinical trial registries, and other published and unpublished sources and documentation; and (4) interviews with non-patient, non-physician stakeholders, including federal regulators, industry scientists and non-physician providers. An international two-round Delphi process will then be performed to identify the outcomes deemed most important to patients and physicians. Subsequently, a consensus meeting will be convened to review and process the results, and to vote on a final set of core outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was provided by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (protocol ID: STU00201637). This study is registered with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative initiatives, and this protocol is in accordance with the guidelines for protocol development of both groups. All findings from the study described in this protocol will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved in the development process and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020214189.

Core outcome sets in clinical laser research: how better evidence can be better for patients

Core outcome sets, or the minimum sets of outcomes that would be used in all clinical studies of a given disease or condition, have the potential to revolutionize clinical research in laser and energy devices. Currently, laser studies, like other clinical investigations in medicine, measure whatever outcomes the individual investigators deem appropriate, making it difficult to compare safety and efficacy of various treatments through meta-analyses. The development of core outcome sets is rigorous, and involves systematic literature reviews, interviews with various stakeholders such as industry researchers, regulatory bodies, non-physician providers, patients and family members, as well as an international Delphi consensus process with input from both patients and physicians. Following the establishment of core outcome sets, core outcome measures are developed, with one measure being the preferred means for assessing each core outcome. Uptake of core outcome sets and measures can make it much easier to combine the results of different studies of the same condition across treatment modalities and geographic regions. Once researchers are all reporting, at a minimum, the same outcomes and using the same outcome measures, patients will truly be well-served, and we will then be working cooperatively, worldwide, to answer the same important questions. In doing so, we will move the science of laser medicine forward.