Development of South Australian-Victorian Prostate Cancer Health Outcomes Research Dataset

(Common) Data Elements in Radiation Oncology: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

Structured medical data documentation is highly relevant in a data-driven discipline such as radiation oncology. Defined (common) data elements (CDEs) can be used to record data in clinical trials, health records, or computer systems for improved standardization and data exchange. The International Society for Radiation Oncology Informatics initiated a project for a scientific literature analysis of defined data elements for structured documentation in radiation oncology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review on both PubMed and Scopus to analyze publications relevant to the utilization of specified data elements for the documentation of radiation therapy (RT)-related information. Relevant publications were retrieved as full-text and searched for published data elements. Finally, the extracted data elements were quantitatively analyzed and classified.

RESULTS

We found a total of 452 publications, of which 46 were considered relevant for structured data documentation. Twenty-nine publications addressed defined RT-specific data elements, of which 12 publications provided data elements. Only two publications focused on data elements in radiation oncology. The 29 analyzed publications were heterogeneous regarding the subject and usage of the defined data elements, and different concepts/terms for defined data elements were used.

CONCLUSION

The literature about structured data documentation in radiation oncology using defined data elements is scarce. There is a need for a comprehensive list of RT-specific CDEs the radio-oncologic community can rely on. As it has been done in other medical fields, establishing such a list would be of great value for clinical practice and research as it would promote interoperability and standardization.

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures into health care for men with localized prostate cancer

Measuring treatment-related quality of life (QOL) has become an increasingly requisite component of delivering high-quality care for patients with prostate cancer. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have, therefore, become an important tool for understanding the adverse effects of radical prostate cancer treatment and have been widely integrated into clinical practice. By providing real-time symptom monitoring and improved clinical feedback to patients and providers, PRO assessment has led to meaningful gains in prostate cancer care delivery and quality improvement worldwide. By providing an avenue for benchmarking, collaboration and population health monitoring, PROMs have delivered substantial improvements beyond providing individual symptom feedback. However, multilevel barriers exist that need to be addressed before the routine implementation of PROMs is achieved. Improvements in collection, interpretation, standardization and reporting will be crucial for the continued implementation of PROM instruments in prostate cancer pathways.

Prostate cancer in Asia: design of a patient registry to inform real-world treatments, outcomes, and quality of life

Background

The incidence of prostate cancer (PC) in Asian countries is increasing for reasons that are not clear. Data describing how PC is diagnosed and treated are fragmented across Asia, with marked intercountry and intracountry differences in outcome and knowledge gaps in clinical diagnostic and treatment practices. To address these knowledge gaps, we have established a PC disease registry with the aim of providing a comprehensive picture of PC diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and outcome, population characteristics, and comorbidities in real-world clinical practice in Asia.

Methods

This is a multinational, multicenter, longitudinal, and observational registry of PC patients presenting to participating tertiary-care hospitals in eight Asian countries (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02546908. Registry Identifier: NOPRODPCR4001). Approximately 3500-4000 eligible patients with existing or newly diagnosed high-risk localized PC (cohort 1), nonmetastatic biochemically recurrent PC (cohort 2), or metastatic PC (cohort 3) will be consecutively enrolled and followed-up for 5 years. An enrollment cap of 600 patients each will be applied to cohorts 1 and 2. Disease status is collected at enrollment, and outcome variables captured at 3-monthly intervals include diagnostic/staging, treatments including reason for change, laboratory results, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Treatments and survival outcomes will be captured real time until study end. Patient-reported quality-of-life will be measured every 6 months, and medical resource utilization summarized at study end. Data analysis will include exploratory analyses of potential associations between multiple risk factors and socioeconomic variables with disease progression and evaluation of various treatments for PC including novel therapies on clinical outcome and health-related quality-of-life outcomes.

Results

3636 men with PC were enrolled until July 2018; 416 in cohort 1, 399 in cohort 2 and 2821 in cohort 3.

Discussion

A total of 3636 patients were enrolled until July 2018. The prospective disease registry will provide comprehensive and wide-ranging real-world information on how PC is diagnosed and treated in Asia. Such information can be used to inform policy development for best practice and direct clinical study design evaluating new treatments.

A retrospective analysis of Victorian and South Australian clinical registries for prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and management of the disease

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy reported to Australian cancer registries with numerous studies from individual registries summarizing diagnostic and treatment characteristics. The aim of this study was to describe annual trends in clinical and treatment characteristics, and changes in surveillance practice within a large combined cohort of men with PCa in South Australia (SA) and Victoria, Australia in 2008-2013.

METHODS

Common data items from clinical registries in SA and Victoria were merged to develop a cross-jurisdictional dataset consisting of 13,598 men with PCa. Frequencies were used to describe these variables using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk of disease progression categories in 10 year age groups. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of a number of factors (both individually and together) on the likelihood of men receiving no active treatment within twelve months of the diagnosis (i.e. managed with active surveillance/watchful waiting).

RESULTS

Trend analysis showed that over time: (1) men in SA and Victoria are being diagnosed at older age in 2013, 66.1 (SD = 9.7) years compared to 2009 (64.5 (SD = 9.7)); (2) diagnostic methods and characteristics have changed with time; and (3) types of the treatments have changed, with more men having no active treatment. The majority of men were diagnosed with Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) <10 ng/mL (66 %) and Grade Group < 4 (65 %). Nearly seventy percent received radical treatment within 12 months of diagnosis, while ~20 % had no active treatment. In 14 % of cases treatment was not recorded or had not commenced. Having no active treatment was strongly associated older age, lower PSA and lower Grade Group at diagnosis, and in 2013 it was offered more frequently (more than 3 times) than in 2009 (OR = 2.63, 95 % CI: 2.16-3.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this study provide the first cross-jurisdictional description of PCa characteristics and management in Australia. These findings will provide benchmarking for ongoing monitoring and feedback of disease management and outcomes of PCa through the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Australia New Zealand to improve evidence-based practice.