Synthesis and summary of patient-reported outcome measures to inform the development of a core outcome set in colorectal cancer surgery

Outcomes reported in randomised trials of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity of reported outcomes can impact the certainty of evidence for prehabilitation. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map outcomes and assessment tools used in trials of surgical prehabilitation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched in February 2023. Randomised controlled trials of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research framework.

RESULTS

We included 76 trials, mostly focused on abdominal or orthopaedic surgeries. A total of 50 different outcomes were identified, measured using 184 outcome assessment tools. Observer-reported outcomes were collected in 86% of trials (n=65), with hospital length of stay being most common. Performance outcomes were reported in 80% of trials (n=61), most commonly as exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinician-reported outcomes were included in 78% (n=59) of trials and most frequently included postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 76% (n=58) of trials, with health-related quality of life using the 36- or 12-Item Short Form Survey being most prevalent. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 16% of trials (n=12) most commonly using inflammatory markers assessed with C-reactive protein.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of outcomes and assessment tools across surgical prehabilitation trials. Identification of meaningful outcomes, and agreement on appropriate assessment tools, could inform the development of a prehabilitation core outcomes set to harmonise outcome reporting and facilitate meta-analyses.

Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Advanced Nursing Practice: What Are Key Considerations for Implementation and Optimized Use?

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the opportunities and challenges of implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) within advanced practice nursing services in cancer care.

METHODS

This discussion paper has been informed by an environmental scan of evidence from systematic reviews and primary studies evaluating the use and implementation of PROMs and PREMs. Literature from the contexts of cancer and chronic disease, including nursing and multidisciplinary supportive care literature, has been included.

RESULTS

Advanced practice nurses are well-positioned to evaluate and respond to PROMs and PREMs data; several studies have highlighted improved patient outcomes concerning quality of life, symptom distress, and functional status within nurse-led services. Nevertheless, the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in cancer care and nurse-led services is variable. Previous studies have highlighted implementation challenges, which can hinder comparability and generalizability of PROMs and PREMs instruments. Advanced practice nurses should consider these challenges, including ways to use standardized PROM instruments. Electronic PROMs, while efficient, may exclude individuals at risk of inequity. Complex, lengthy, and frequent administration of PROMs may also overburden people living with or after cancer, with people affected by cancer expressing preference for flexible use in some studies. Therefore, the involvement of people affected by cancer in planning for PROMs/PREMs implementation may overcome this challenge. Finally, organizational considerations in implementation should address financial investments, including initial costs for technology and training and consideration of the operationalization of PROMs within existing infrastructure for the seamless utilization of PROMs data.

CONCLUSION

Despite the potential of advanced practice nursing services to enhance patient-reported outcomes and experiences, variability in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs poses challenges. Use of validated measures, electronic or paper-based instruments, and the preferences of people affected by cancer for the use of PROMs and PREMs must be carefully considered in consultation with end users for successful implementation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In planning for the implementation of PROMs and PREMs within nurse-led services, implementation risks may be mitigated through establishing clear guidelines for their use, investment in the development of the required infrastructure, user education, and rigorous implementation processes, including patient involvement in PROMs/PREMs selection.

Patient-reported Outcome Measure (PROM) Rand-36-item Health Survey for Gallstone Disease Patients Five Years Following Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND/AIM

There are no studies assessing the long-term quality of life (QoL) following three-dimensional laparoscopy cholecystectomy (3D-LC) in patients with cholelithiasis (Chole).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cohort of 200 patients with Chole were randomized into 3D-LC or minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC) groups. RAND-36 survey was performed before randomization, four weeks and five years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Similar postoperative five years RAND-36 scores were reported in the 3D-LC and MC groups. The MC and 3D-LC groups combined analysis, social functioning (SF, p=0.007), mental health (MH, p=0.001), role physical (RP, p<0.001) and bodily pain (BP, p<0.001) domains increased significantly. In comparison to the Finnish reference RAND-36 (FRR) scores, the scores at five years increased significantly in the MH domain, while four RAND-36 domains; Physical functioning (PF), general health (GH), RP, BP remained significantly lower in comparison to the FRR scores.

CONCLUSION

A relatively similar long-term outcome in the 3D-LC and MC patients is shown. Interestingly, five RAND-36 domains increased during five years follow-up, while four RAND-36 domains remained lower than FRR scores, which may indicate onset of possible new symptoms following cholecystectomy in long-term follow-up.

Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia

AIM

The aim was to develop and pilot a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia (PSH).

METHODS

Standard questionnaire development was undertaken (phases 1-3). An initial list of questionnaire domains was identified from validated colorectal cancer PROMs and from semi-structured interviews with patients with a PSH and health professionals (phase 1). Domains were operationalized into items in a provisional questionnaire, and 'think-aloud' patient interviews explored face validity and acceptability (phase 2). The updated questionnaire was piloted in patients with a stoma who had undergone colorectal surgery and had a computed tomography scan available for review. Patient-reported symptoms were examined in relation to PSH (phase 3). Three sources determined PSH presence: (i) data about PSH presence recorded in hospital notes, (ii) independent expert review of the computed tomography scan and (iii) patient report of being informed of a PSH by a health professional.

RESULTS

For phase 1, 169 and 127 domains were identified from 70 PROMs and 29 interviews respectively. In phase 2, 14 domains specific to PSH were identified and operationalized into questionnaire items. Think-aloud interviews led to three minor modifications. In phase 3, 44 completed questionnaires were obtained. Missing data were few: 5/660 items. PSH symptom scores associated with PSH presence varied between different data sources. The scale with the most consistent differences between PSH presence and absence and all data sources was the stoma appearance scale.

CONCLUSION

A PROM to examine the symptoms of PSH has been developed from the literature and views of key informants. Although preliminary testing shows it to be understandable and acceptable it is uncertain if it is sensitive to PSH-specific symptoms and further psychometric testing is needed.

Factors affecting quality of life in rectal cancer survivors who have undergone laparoscopic surgery: patient-reported outcomes over 10 years at a single institution

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer survivors have many problems affecting their quality of life (QOL). Traditional follow-up focuses on the detection of recurrence rather than QOL. Efforts are being made to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROMS) more formally. Such changes may enable patients to consider QOL factors when deciding on treatment.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer between 2005 and 2015 at a single institution were identified and sent European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 QOL questionnaires. QOL and the impact of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and formation of end colostomy were assessed.

RESULTS

Some 141 patients were identified: 12 died and 118 (83.7%) responded, of whom 101 completed the questionnaires and 17 declined to participate; 11 were lost to follow-up. Mean age was 67 years, median follow-up was 58 months. Median QOL score was 6 (maximum 7) and 4.5% of patients reported a poor QOL score (<4). Significant rectal/perianal pain, sexual dysfunction and urinary symptoms were reported in 3.6%, 10.9% and 2.7% of respondents, respectively. Significant differences between treatment groups were uncommon. All cohorts reported similar QOL, functional and symptom scores.

CONCLUSIONS

These results compare favourably with the published data. Future studies may benefit from baseline assessment to better assess treatment impact, prescient in an increasingly elderly and comorbid population. This paper establishes that good PROMs are achievable with laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. It identifies limited differences in QOL between treatment modalities. Restoration of intestinal continuity and end colostomy result in similar QOL. This may address common concerns regarding stomata, sexual function and low anterior resection syndrome in this cohort.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy After Colorectal Enhanced Recovery Pathway

Objective:

To evaluate the influence of enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) after colorectal surgery.

Background:

ERP improves early outcomes after colorectal surgery; however, little is known about its influence on PROMs and on RIOT.

Methods:

Prospective multicenter enrollment of patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis was performed, recording variables related to patient-, institution-, procedure-level data, adherence to the ERP, and outcomes. The primary endpoints were PROMs (administered before surgery, at discharge, and 6 to 8 weeks after surgery) and RIOT after surgery for malignancy, defined as the intended oncologic treatment according to national guidelines and disease stage, administered within 8 weeks from the index operation, evaluated through multivariate regression models.

Results:

The study included 4529 patients, analyzed for PROMs, 1467 of which were analyzed for RIOT. Compared to their baseline preoperative values, all PROMs showed significant worsening at discharge and improvement at late evaluation. PROMs values at discharge and 6 to 8 weeks after surgery, adjusted through a generalized mixed regression model according to preoperative status and other variables, showed no association with ERP adherence rates. RIOT rates (overall 54.5%) were independently lower by aged > 69 years, ASA Class III, open surgery, and presence of major morbidity; conversely, they were independently higher after surgery performed in an institutional ERP center and by ERP adherence rates > median (69.2%).

Conclusions:

Adherence to the ERP had no effect on PROMs, whereas it independently influenced RIOT rates after surgery for colorectal cancer.

In this prospective multicenter study performed on 4529 patients who underwent colorectal resection, adherence to an enhanced recovery pathway showed no effect on patient-reported outcomes but independently influenced the return to intended oncologic therapy.

Quality of life and patient reported symptoms after colorectal cancer in a Swedish population

AIM

A proportion of patients treated for colorectal cancer have impaired quality of life (QoL) but it is uncertain if the level of QoL differs from the corresponding background population. This population-based cohort study aimed to evaluate health-related QoL in colorectal cancer patients and compare their QoL with that of a Swedish reference population.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer Stages I-III in the Stockholm-Gotland region in 2013-2015 received the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-CR29 questionnaires and the low anterior resection syndrome score, 1 year after surgery. Patient and tumour data were collected from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. The patient cohort was matched to a Swedish reference population regarding EORTC QLQ-C30. Global QoL was compared to the reference population and a patient group with impaired QoL was defined. Detailed patient-reported outcomes were analysed in relation to global QoL in the patient cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 925 patients returned the questionnaires and 358 patients (38.70%) reported a clinically relevant impaired global QoL compared to the reference population. Patients with impaired QoL reported clinically relevant and statistically significantly more complaints regarding bowel habits, pain and anxiety. After adjustment for sex, age and stoma, anxiety was the strongest predictor for impaired QoL, with OR 6.797 (95% CI 4.677-9.879).

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of patients treated for colorectal cancer have impaired global QoL. This impairment is strongly associated with several physical symptoms and anxiety.

The health-related quality of life changes following surgery in patients with colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is commonly treated with surgery and its success is frequently defined by cure rates. Impact on other aspects of health and wellbeing are less frequently considered in clinical practice. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a useful means of assessing such impacts. This study examines changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after surgical resection using PROMs.

METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal study was undertaken in 49 adults receiving curative surgery for CRC. Participants completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) before surgery, and at 2 to 4 weeks, 3 and 6 months post-surgery. Linear mixed models were used to analyse FACT-C wellbeing and subscale scores.

RESULTS

Patients reported a clinically important deterioration in functional and physical wellbeing 2 to 4 weeks post-surgery (both P < 0.05); differences at 6 months after surgery were trivial. Conversely, patients reported clinically important improvement in emotional wellbeing at 2 to 4 weeks post-surgery; this improvement was sustained at 3 and 6 months post-surgery (all P < 0.05). For social wellbeing and colorectal cancer-specific concerns, changes from before surgery at follow-up assessments were not statistically significant (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While physical aspects of HRQoL are affected in the short term by CRC surgery, clinically significant improvement in emotional wellbeing are reported early (2 to 4 weeks post-surgery). Future research may help identify patients who are at greater risk of surgical impacts on health and wellbeing.

Patient reported outcome measures in a cohort of patients at high risk of breast cancer treated by bilateral risk reducing mastectomy and breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Many women with increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, due to pathogenic gene variants or family history, choose to undergo bilateral risk reducing mastectomies (BRRM). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) are an increasingly important part of informed consent but are little studied in women undergoing BRRM.

METHODS

We used a validated PROMS tool for breast reconstruction (BREAST-Q) in 297 women who had BRRM and breast reconstruction, 81% of whom had no malignancy (Benign Group, BG) and 19% in whom a perioperative breast cancer was diagnosed (Cancer Group, CG). 128 women also completed a Hospital Anxiety & Depression Score (HADS) questionnaire to test if preoperative HADS score could predict PROMS outcomes.

RESULTS

Women in the CG had lower PROMS scores for satisfaction with their breasts, nipple reconstruction and sexual wellbeing. Both groups reported equal satisfaction with BRRM outcome and psychosocial well-being. Physical well-being PROMS of the abdomen and chest were high in women in both groups as were scores for satisfaction with the care they received. The CG group reported suboptimal quality of patient information. A higher presurgical HADS anxiety score predicted less favourable postoperative psychosocial well-being despite similar levels of satisfaction with aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSION

We show a high degree of patient reported satisfaction by woman undergoing BRRM and reconstruction. There was a negative association with a cancer diagnosis on quality of life PROMS and higher preoperative anxiety levels negatively affected postoperative psychosocial well-being. These important findings should be part of the informed consent process during preoperative counselling.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Colorectal Surgery: Construction of Core Measures Using Open-Source Research Method

Purpose. The primary aim of the study was to review the existing literature about patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in colorectal cancer and IBD. The secondary aim was to present a road map to develop a core outcome set via opinion gathering using social media. Method. This study is the first step of a three-step project aimed at constructing simple, applicable PROMs in colorectal surgery. This article was written in a collaborative manner with authors invited both through Twitter via the #OpenSourceResearch hashtag. The 5 most used PROMs were presented and discussed as slides/images on Twitter. Inputs from a wide spectrum of participants including researchers, surgeons, physicians, nurses, patients, and patients' organizations were collected and analyzed. The final draft was emailed to all contributors and 6 patients' representatives for proofreading and approval. Results. Five PROM sets were identified and discussed: EORTC QLQ-CR29, IBDQ short health questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30, ED-Q5-5L, and Short Form-36. There were 315 tweets posted by 50 tweeters with 1458 retweets. Awareness about PROMs was generally limited. The general psycho-physical well-being score (GPP) was suggested and discussed, and then a survey was conducted in which more than 2/3 of voters agreed that GPP covers the most important aspects in PROMs. Conclusion. Despite the limitations of this exploratory study, it offered a new method to conduct clinical research with opportunity to engage patients. The general psycho-physical well-being score suggested as simple, applicable PROMs to be eventually combined procedure-specific, disease-specific, or symptom-specific PROMs if needed.

Toward Patient-Centered Innovation: A Conceptual Framework for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Transformative Kidney Replacement Devices

Individuals with dialysis-dependent kidney failure experience considerable disease- and treatment-related decline in functional status and overall well-being. Despite these experiences, there have been few substantive technological advances in KRT in decades. As such, new federal initiatives seek to accelerate innovation. Historically, integration of patient perspectives into KRT product development has been limited. However, the US Food and Drug Administration recognizes the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into the total product life cycle (i.e., from product conception to postmarket surveillance) and encourages the consideration of patient-reported outcomes in regulatory-focused clinical trials when appropriate. Recognizing the significance of identifying patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that capture contemporary patient priorities, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and US Food and Drug Administration, convened a workgroup to (1) develop a conceptual framework for a health-related quality of life PROM; (2) identify and map existing PROMs to the conceptual framework, prioritizing them on the basis of their supporting evidence for use in the regulatory environment; and (3) describe next steps for identifying PROMs for use in regulatory clinical trials of transformative KRT devices. This paper summarizes the proposed health-related quality-of-life PROM conceptual framework, maps and prioritizes PROMs, and identifies gaps and future needs to advance the development of rigorous, meaningful PROMS for use in clinical trials of transformative KRT devices.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Minimally Invasive Colectomy

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy.

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic-assisted colon surgery is increasing. Robotic technology is more expensive and whether a robotically assisted approach is cost-effective remains to be determined.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the 1-year costs and quality-adjusted time between robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy. Model inputs were derived from available literature for costs, quality of life (QOL), and outcomes. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effect of clinically reasonable variations in the inputs on our results.

RESULTS

Open colectomy cost more and achieved lower QOL than robotic and laparoscopic approaches. From the societal perspective, robotic colectomy costs $745 more per case than laparoscopy, resulting in an ICER of $2,322,715/QALY because of minimal differences in QOL. From the healthcare sector perspective, robotics cost $1339 more per case with an ICER of $4,174,849/QALY. In both models, laparoscopic colectomy was more frequently cost-effective across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses suggest robotic colectomy becomes cost-effective at $100,000/QALY if robotic disposable instrument costs decrease below $1341 per case, robotic operating room time falls below 172 minutes, or robotic hernia rate is less than 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic colectomy are more cost-effective than open resection. Robotics can surpass laparoscopy in cost-effectiveness by achieving certain thresholds in QOL, instrument costs, and postoperative outcomes. With increased use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery, there is a burden to demonstrate these benefits.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

Three major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.

Impact of a Parastomal Bulge on Quality of Life - A Cross-sectional Study of Patients From the Danish Stoma Database

OBJECTIVE

To investigate stoma specific and generic HRQoL in patients with and without a parastomal bulge.

BACKGROUND

Most patients have to live with their stoma complicated by a parastomal bulge. How this affects quality of life remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients in the Danish Stoma Database completed the Short-form 36 health survey and the stoma-QOL questionnaire. Linear regression analysis, adjusted for potential confounding factors, provided mean and mean score differences and 95% confidence intervals for each HRQoL scale and item. Cohens d provided estimates of effect size.

RESULTS

A total of 1265 patients (65%) completed the questionnaire 4.4 (interquartile range 3.1-6.0) years after stoma surgery. Of these, 693 (55%) patients with a parastomal bulge had significantly impaired (P < 0.01) HRQoL across all stoma specific and generic health domains compared to patients without a parastomal bulge. In patients with a benign diagnosis or an ileostomy, a parastomal bulge impacted significantly on Social Functioning and Mental Health resulting in a worse Mental Component Summary. A large bulge >10 cm impaired HRQoL (P < 0.01) across all stoma specific and generic domains. The impact on HRQoL was independent of time with the bulge.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel finding in this large, unselected sample from high-quality regional registries was that parastomal bulging was associated with substantial and sustained impairment of HRQoL.

Regional multidisciplinary team intervention programme to improve colorectal cancer outcomes: study protocol for the Yorkshire Cancer Research Bowel Cancer Improvement Programme (YCR BCIP)

INTRODUCTION

Although colorectal cancer outcomes in England are improving, they remain poorer than many comparable countries. Yorkshire Cancer Research has, therefore, established a Bowel Cancer Improvement Programme (YCR BCIP) to improve colorectal cancer outcomes within Yorkshire and Humber, a region representative of the nation. It aims to do this by quantifying variation in practice, engaging with the colorectal multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) to understand this and developing educational interventions to minimise it and improve outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Initially, routine health datasets will be used to quantify variation in the demographics, management and outcomes of patients across the Yorkshire and Humber region and results presented to MDTs. The YCR BCIP is seeking to supplement these existing data with patient-reported health-related quality of life information (patient-reported outcome measures, PROMs) and tissue sample analysis. Specialty groups (surgery, radiology, pathology, clinical oncology, medical oncology, clinical nurse specialists and anaesthetics) have been established to provide oversight and direction for their clinical area within the programme, to review data and analysis and to develop appropriate educational initiatives.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The YCR BCIP is aiming to address the variation in practice to significantly improve colorectal cancer outcomes across the Yorkshire and Humber region. PROMs and tissue sample collection and analysis will help to capture the information required to fully assess care in the region. Engagement of the region's MDTs with their data will lead to a range of educational initiatives, studies and clinical audits that aim to optimise practice across the region.

Development of a core information set for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study

OBJECTIVE

'Core information sets' (CISs) represent baseline information, agreed by patients and professionals, to stimulate individualised patient-centred discussions. This study developed a CIS for use before colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery.

DESIGN

Three phase consensus study: (1) Systematic literature reviews and patient interviews to identify potential information of importance to patients, (2) UK national Delphi survey of patients and professionals to rate the importance of the information, (3) international consensus meeting to agree on the final CIS.

SETTING

UK CRC centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sampling was conducted to ensure CRC centre representation based upon geographical region and caseload volume. Responses were received from 63/81 (78%) centres (90 professionals). Adult patients who had undergone CRC surgery were eligible, and purposive sampling was conducted to ensure representation based on age, sex and cancer location (rectum, left and right colon). Responses were received from 97/267 (35%) patients with a wide age range (29-87), equal sex ratio and cancer location. Attendees of the international Tripartite Colorectal Conference were eligible for the consensus meeting.

OUTCOMES

Phase 1: Information of potential importance to patients was extracted verbatim and operationalised into a Delphi questionnaire. Phase 2: Patients and professionals rated the importance information on a 9-point Likert scale, and resurveyed following group feedback. Information rated of low importance were discarded using predefined criteria. Phase 3: A modified nominal group technique was used to gain final consensus in separate consensus meetings with patients and professionals.

RESULTS

Data sources identified 1216 pieces of information that informed a 98-item questionnaire. Analysis led to 50 and 23 information domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. The final CIS included 11 concepts including specific surgical complications, short and long-term survival, disease recurrence, stoma and quality of life issues.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has established a CIS for professionals to discuss with patients before CRC surgery.

Identifying Possible Outcome Domains from Existing Outcome Measures to Inform an OMERACT Core Domain Set for Safety in Rheumatology Trials

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group objective was to identify harm domains from existing outcome measurements in rheumatology.

METHODS

Systematically searching the MEDLINE database on January 24, 2017, we identified full-text articles that could be used for harm outcomes in rheumatology. Domains/items from the identified instruments were described and the content synthesized to provide a preliminary framework for harm outcomes.

RESULTS

From 435 possible references, 24 were read in full text and 9 were included: 7 measurement instruments were identified. Investigation of domains/items revealed considerable heterogeneity in the grouping and approach.

CONCLUSION

The ideal way to assess harm aspects from the patients' perspective has not yet been ascertained.

Measurement of patient-reported outcomes after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs.

Understanding patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer

Quality of life has become increasingly regarded as a key outcome measurement for cancer patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent the tools used to ascertain self-reported quality of life. This review provides a summary of the literature regarding the use of PROMs in colorectal cancer and evaluates the advantages and limitations of generic and disease specific questionnaires that can be utilized in clinical practice. Factors that influence PROMs are outlined, including cancer characteristics, patient factors and treatment methods. Finally, future directions for the use of PROMs in colorectal cancer to inform healthcare delivery at an individual- and systems-based level are discussed.

Stoma rods in abdominal surgery: a systematic review and metaanalyses

BACKGROUND

Stoma rods are used traditionally to prevent retraction of loop stomas into the abdominal cavity. However, there is very little evidence to support or refute their use. The aim of the present systematic review and metaanalysis was to assess the current data on stoma rods in loop stomas. The primary outcomes were stoma necrosis and stoma retraction.

METHODS

A systematic review and metaanalyses were conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalysis guidelines (PRISMA). The study protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO. An electronic search was performed by two reviewers independently using predefined search strategy and Medline. Bibliographies of selected studies were screened for additional references. RevMan was used to generate forest plots and calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In total, five studies were identified that met inclusion criteria, including four randomized controlled trials. Three studies examined only ileostomies, while one included both colostomies and ileostomies, and one only examined colostomies. In total, 561 patients underwent a stoma with a rod compared to 443 without. There was a higher rate of dermatitis (rod 29.86% vs no rod 16% OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.79-3.93) and stoma necrosis (rod 7% vs no rod 1.15% OR 5.58; 95% CI 1.85-16.84) in the rod group, but there was no significant difference in stoma retraction (rod 2.28% vs no rod 3.45%; OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.32-1.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Stoma rods do not reduce the incidence of stoma retraction and instead lead to increased rates of dermatitis and stoma necrosis.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour

BACKGROUND

Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

Prognostic factors for return to work and work disability among colorectal cancer survivors; A systematic review

Background

Colorectal cancer is diagnosed progressively in employed patients due to screening programs and increasing retirement age. The objective of this study was to identify prognostic factors for return to work and work disability in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

The research protocol was published at PROSPERO with registration number CRD42017049757. A systematic review of cohort and case-control studies in colorectal cancer patients above 18 years, who were employed when diagnosed, and who had a surgical resection with curative intent were included. The primary outcome was return to work or work disability. Potentially prognostic factors were included in the analysis if they were measured in at least three studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the QUality In Prognosis Studies tool. A qualitative synthesis analysis was performed due to heterogeneity between studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Results

Eight studies were included with a follow-up period of 26 up to 520 weeks. (Neo)adjuvant therapy, higher age, and more comorbidities had a significant negative influence on return to work. A previous period of unemployment, extensive surgical resection and postoperative complications significantly increased the risk of work disability. The quality of evidence for these prognostic factors was considered very low to moderate.

Conclusion

Health care professionals need to be aware of these prognostic factors to select patients eligible for timely intensified rehabilitation in order to optimize the return to work process and prevent work disability.

Effects of Nutritional Prehabilitation, With and Without Exercise, on Outcomes of Patients Who Undergo Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although there have been meta-analyses of the effects of exercise-only prehabilitation on patients undergoing colorectal surgery, little is known about the effects of nutrition-only (oral nutritional supplements with and without counseling) and multimodal (oral nutritional supplements with and without counseling and with exercise) prehabilitation on clinical outcomes and patient function after surgery. We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine the individual and combined effects of nutrition-only and multimodal prehabilitation compared with no prehabilitation (control) on outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal resection.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and ProQuest for cohort and randomized controlled studies of adults awaiting colorectal surgery who received at least 7 days of nutrition prehabilitation with or without exercise. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled risk ratio for categorical data and the weighted mean difference for continuous variables. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay; the secondary outcome was recovery of functional capacity based on results of a 6-minute walk test.

RESULTS

We identified 9 studies (5 randomized controlled studies and 4 cohort studies) composed of 914 patients undergoing colorectal surgery (438 received prehabilitation and 476 served as controls). Receipt of any prehabilitation significantly decreased days spent in the hospital compared with controls (weighted mean difference of length of hospital stay = -2.2 days; 95% confidence interval = -3.5 to -0.9). Only 3 studies reported on functional outcomes but could not be pooled owing to methodologic heterogeneity. In the individual studies, multimodal prehabilitation significantly improved results of the 6-minute walk test at 4 and 8 weeks after surgery compared with standard Enhanced Recovery Pathway care and at 8 weeks compared with standard Enhanced Recovery Pathway care with added rehabilitation. The 4 observational studies had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that nutritional prehabilitation alone or combined with an exercise program significantly decreased length of hospital stay by 2 days in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. There is some evidence that multimodal prehabilitation accelerated the return to presurgical functional capacity.

Expectations of outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer

Background

Understanding patients' expectations of their treatment is critical to ensure appropriate treatment decisions, and to explore how expectations influence coping, quality of life and well‐being. This study aimed to examine these issues related to treatment in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

A literature search from January 1946 to September 2016 was performed to identify available data regarding patients' expectations of outcomes following colorectal cancer treatment. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was planned.

Results

Of 4337 items initially identified, 20 articles were included in the review. In studies presenting data on overall and short‐term survival, patients considerably overestimated prognosis. Patients also had unrealistic expectations of the negative aspects of chemotherapy and stomas. There was marked discordance between patients' and clinicians' expectations regarding chemotherapy, end‐of‐life care, bowel function and psychosocial outcomes. Level of education was the most consistent factor influencing the accuracy of patients' expectations.

Conclusion

Patients with colorectal cancer frequently have unrealistic expectations of treatment. Marked disparities exist between patients' and clinicians' expectations of outcomes.

Combining statistical techniques to predict postsurgical risk of 1-year mortality for patients with colon cancer

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies and a common cause of cancer-related mortality. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a clinical predictive model for 1-year mortality among patients with colon cancer who survive for at least 30 days after surgery.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with colon cancer who had surgery for the first time and who survived 30 days after the surgery were selected prospectively. The outcome was mortality within 1 year. Random forest, genetic algorithms and classification and regression trees were combined in order to identify the variables and partition points that optimally classify patients by risk of mortality. The resulting decision tree was categorized into four risk categories. Split-sample and bootstrap validation were performed. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02488161.

Results

A total of 1945 patients were enrolled in the study. The variables identified as the main predictors of 1-year mortality were presence of residual tumor, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System risk score, pathologic tumor staging, Charlson Comorbidity Index, intraoperative complications, adjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence of tumor. The model was internally validated; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.896 in the derivation sample and 0.835 in the validation sample. Risk categorization leads to AUC values of 0.875 and 0.832 in the derivation and validation samples, respectively. Optimal cut-off point of estimated risk had a sensitivity of 0.889 and a specificity of 0.758.

Conclusion

The decision tree was a simple, interpretable, valid and accurate prediction rule of 1-year mortality among colon cancer patients who survived for at least 30 days after surgery.

Critical research gaps and recommendations to inform research prioritisation for more effective prevention and improved outcomes in colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) leads to significant morbidity/mortality worldwide. Defining critical research gaps (RG), their prioritisation and resolution, could improve patient outcomes.

DESIGN

RG analysis was conducted by a multidisciplinary panel of patients, clinicians and researchers (n=71). Eight working groups (WG) were constituted: discovery science; risk; prevention; early diagnosis and screening; pathology; curative treatment; stage IV disease; and living with and beyond CRC. A series of discussions led to development of draft papers by each WG, which were evaluated by a 20-strong patient panel. A final list of RGs and research recommendations (RR) was endorsed by all participants.

RESULTS

Fifteen critical RGs are summarised below: RG1: Lack of realistic models that recapitulate tumour/tumour micro/macroenvironment; RG2: Insufficient evidence on precise contributions of genetic/environmental/lifestyle factors to CRC risk; RG3: Pressing need for prevention trials; RG4: Lack of integration of different prevention approaches; RG5: Lack of optimal strategies for CRC screening; RG6: Lack of effective triage systems for invasive investigations; RG7: Imprecise pathological assessment of CRC; RG8: Lack of qualified personnel in genomics, data sciences and digital pathology; RG9: Inadequate assessment/communication of risk, benefit and uncertainty of treatment choices; RG10: Need for novel technologies/interventions to improve curative outcomes; RG11: Lack of approaches that recognise molecular interplay between metastasising tumours and their microenvironment; RG12: Lack of reliable biomarkers to guide stage IV treatment; RG13: Need to increase understanding of health related quality of life (HRQOL) and promote residual symptom resolution; RG14: Lack of coordination of CRC research/funding; RG15: Lack of effective communication between relevant stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

Prioritising research activity and funding could have a significant impact on reducing CRC disease burden over the next 5 years.

Recommendations for Randomised Trials in Surgical Oncology

Trials of surgical procedures in the treatment of malignant disease face a unique set of challenges. This review aimed to describe recommendations for the design, delivery and reporting of randomised trials in surgical oncology. A literature search was carried out without date limits to identify articles related to trial methodology research in surgery and surgical oncology. A narrative review was framed around two open National Institute of Health Research portfolio trials in colon and rectal cancer: the STAR-TREC trial (ISRCTN14240288) and the ROCCS trial (ISRCTN46330337). Twelve specific challenges were highlighted: standardisation of technique; pilot and feasibility studies; balancing treatments; the recruitment pathway; outcome measures; patient and public representation; trainee-led networks; randomisation; novel techniques and training; learning curves; blinding; follow-up. Evidence-based recommendations were made for the future design and conduct of surgical oncology trials. Better understanding of the challenges facing trials in the surgical treatment of cancer will accelerate high-quality evaluation and rapid adoption of innovation for the benefit of patient care.

Inconsistent selection of outcomes and measurement devices found in shoulder arthroplasty research: An analysis of studies on ClinicalTrials.gov

Introduction

Recent evidence suggests a lack of standardization of shoulder arthroplasty outcomes. This issue is a limiting factor in systematic reviews. Core outcome set (COS) methodology could address this problem by delineating a minimum set of outcomes for measurement in all shoulder arthroplasty trials.

Methods

A ClinicalTrials.gov search yielded 114 results. Eligible trials were coded on the following characteristics: study status, study type, arthroplasty type, sample size, measured outcomes, outcome measurement device, specific metric of measurement, method of aggregation, outcome classification, and adverse events.

Results

Sixty-six trials underwent data abstraction and data synthesis. Following abstraction, 383 shoulder arthroplasty outcomes were organized into 11 outcome domains. The most commonly reported outcomes were shoulder outcome score (n = 58), pain (n = 33), and quality of life (n = 15). The most common measurement devices were the Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score (n = 38) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (n = 33). Temporal patterns of outcome use was also found.

Conclusion

Our study suggests the need for greater standardization of outcomes and instruments. The lack of consistency across trials indicates that developing a core outcome set for shoulder arthroplasty trials would be worthwhile. Such standardization would allow for more effective comparison across studies in systematic reviews, while at the same time consider important outcomes that may be underrepresented otherwise. This review of outcomes provides an evidence-based foundation for the development of a COS for shoulder arthroplasty.

A pilot study of patient-centered outcome assessment using PROMIS for patients undergoing colorectal surgery

Purpose

Few studies have assessed patient-reported outcomes following colorectal surgery. The absence of this information makes it difficult to inform patients about the near-term effects of surgery, beyond outcomes assessed by traditional clinical measures. This study was designed to provide information about the effects of colorectal surgery on physical, mental, and social well-being outcomes.

Methods

The NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Assessment Center was used to collect patient responses prior to surgery and at their routine postoperative visit. Four domains were selected based on patient consultation and clinical experience: depression, pain interference, ability to participate in social roles and activities, and interest in sexual activity. Multilevel random coefficient models were used to assess the change in scores during the follow-up period and to assess the statistical significance of differences in trends over time associated with key clinical measures.

Results

In total, 142 patients were consented, with 107 patients completing pre- and postoperative assessments (75%). Preoperative assessments were typically completed 1 month prior to surgery (mean 29.5 days before, SD = 19.7) and postoperative assessments 1 month after surgery (mean 30.7 days after, SD = 9.2), with a mean of 60.3 days between assessment dates. Patients demonstrated no statistically significant changes in scores for pain interference (−0.18 points, p = 0.80) or the ability to participate in social roles and activities (0.44 points, p = 0.55), but had significant decreases in depression scores between pre- and postoperative assessments (−1.6 points, p = 0.03) and near significant increases in scores for interest in sex (1.5 points, p = 0.06). Pain interference scores for patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased (3.5 points, p = 0.03). Scores for the interest in sex domain decreased (worsened) for patients with oncologic etiology (−3.7 points, p = 0.03). No other differences in score trends by patient characteristics were large enough to be statistically significant at the p < 0.05 threshold.

Conclusion

These data suggest that the majority of patients quickly return to baseline physical, mental, and social function following colorectal surgery. This information can be used preoperatively to counsel patients about the typical impact of colorectal surgery on quality of life.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3718-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development

BACKGROUND

Methods for developing a core outcome or information set require involvement of key stakeholders to prioritise many items and achieve agreement as to the core set. The Delphi technique requires participants to rate the importance of items in sequential questionnaires (or rounds) with feedback provided in each subsequent round such that participants are able to consider the views of others. This study examines the impact of receiving feedback from different stakeholder groups, on the subsequent rating of items and the level of agreement between stakeholders.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were nested within the development of three core sets each including a Delphi process with two rounds of questionnaires, completed by patients and health professionals. Participants rated items from 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). For round 2, participants were randomized to receive feedback from their peer stakeholder group only (peer) or both stakeholder groups separately (multiple). Decisions as to which items to retain following each round were determined by pre-specified criteria.

RESULTS

Whilst type of feedback did not impact on the percentage of items for which a participant subsequently changed their rating, or the magnitude of change, it did impact on items retained at the end of round 2. Each core set contained discordant items retained by one feedback group but not the other (3-22 % discordant items). Consensus between patients and professionals in items to retain was greater amongst those receiving multiple group feedback in each core set (65-82 % agreement for peer-only feedback versus 74-94 % for multiple feedback). In addition, differences in round 2 scores were smaller between stakeholder groups receiving multiple feedback than between those receiving peer group feedback only. Variability in item scores across stakeholders was reduced following any feedback but this reduction was consistently greater amongst the multiple feedback group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the development of a core outcome or information set, providing feedback within Delphi questionnaires from all stakeholder groups separately may influence the final core set and improve consensus between the groups. Further work is needed to better understand how participants rate and re-rate items within a Delphi process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The three randomized controlled trials reported here were each nested within the development of a core information or outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome and information set development. Outcomes were not health-related and therefore trial registration was not applicable.

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival).

CONCLUSION

This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals

Background

Trials are robust sources of data for clinical practice; however, trial outcomes may not reflect what is important to communicate for decision-making. The study compared clinicians’ views of outcomes to include in a core outcome set for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, with what clinicians considered important information for clinical practice (core information).

Methods

Potential outcome/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into six categories and used to design a questionnaire survey that asked surgeons and nurses from a sample of CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain as an outcome or as information on a nine-point Likert scale. Respondents were re-surveyed (round 2) following group feedback (Delphi methods). Comparisons were made by calculating the difference in mean scores between the outcomes and information domains, and paired t tests were used to explore the difference between mean scores of the six outcome/information categories.

Results

Data sources identified 1216 outcome/information items for CRC surgery that informed a 94-item questionnaire. First-round questionnaires were returned from 63/81 (78 %) of centers. Clinicians rated 76/94 (84 %) domains of higher importance to measure in trials than information to communicate to patients in round 1. This was reduced to 24/47 (51 %) in round 2. The greatest difference was evident in domains regarding survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than an important piece of information for decision-making (difference in mean 2.3, 95 % CI 1.9 to 2.8, p <0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (difference in mean 0.18, 95 % CI −0.1 to 0.4, p = 0.2 and difference in mean 0.2, 95 % CI −0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.2, respectively).

Conclusions

Whilst clinicians want to measure key outcomes in trials, they rate these as less important to communicate in decision-making with patients. This discrepancy needs to be explored and addressed to maximize the impact of trials on clinical practice.

Colorectal cancer health services research study protocol: the CCR-CARESS observational prospective cohort project

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancers are one of the most common forms of malignancy worldwide. But two significant areas of research less studied deserve attention: health services use and development of patient stratification risk tools for these patients.

METHODS

DESIGN

a prospective multicenter cohort study with a follow up period of up to 5 years after surgical intervention. Participant centers: 22 hospitals representing six autonomous communities of Spain. Participants/Study population: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer that have undergone surgical intervention and have consented to participate in the study between June 2010 and December 2012. Variables collected include pre-intervention background, sociodemographic parameters, hospital admission records, biological and clinical parameters, treatment information, and outcomes up to 5 years after surgical intervention. Patients completed the following questionnaires prior to surgery and in the follow up period: EuroQol-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30 (The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire) and QLQ-CR29 (module for colorectal cancer), the Duke Functional Social Support Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Barthel Index. The main endpoints of the study are mortality, tumor recurrence, major complications, readmissions, and changes in health-related quality of life at 30 days and at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after surgical intervention.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

In relation to the different endpoints, predictive models will be used by means of multivariate logistic models, Cox or linear mixed-effects regression models. Simulation models for the prediction of discrete events in the long term will also be used, and an economic evaluation of different treatment strategies will be performed through the use of generalized linear models.

DISCUSSION

The identification of potential risk factors for adverse events may help clinicians in the clinical decision making process. Also, the follow up by 5 years of this large cohort of patients may provide useful information to answer different health services research questions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02488161 . Registration date: June 16, 2015.