Delphi survey to inform patient-reported symptom monitoring after ovarian cancer treatment

Patient and clinician priorities for information on treatment outcomes for advanced ovarian cancer: a Delphi exercise

OBJECTIVE

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer face a range of treatment options, and there is unwarranted variation in treatment decision-making between UK providers. Decision support tools that produce data on treatment outcomes as a function of individual patient characteristics, would help both patients and clinicians to make informed, preference- and values-based choices. However, data on treatment outcomes to include in such tools are lacking.

METHODS

Following a literature review, a questionnaire was designed for use in a Delphi process to establish which treatment outcomes are important to both patients and clinicians in decision-making for treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. Patient and clinician panels were established.

RESULTS

Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved for 7/11 items in the patient panel and 8/11 items in the clinician panel. Consensus across both panels was achieved for inclusion of both overall survival and progression free survival as important items in the decision-making process, although there remained differences of opinion as to whether these should be presented as relative or absolute values.

CONCLUSION

Information needs for treatment decision-making in ovarian cancer differ between and within patient and clinician groups. Whilst overall survival and progression free survival are universally accepted as important data items, decision support tools will need to be nuanced to allow presentation of a range of outcomes and associated probabilities, and in a range of formats, that can be tailored to the preferences of clinician and patients.

Current treatment landscape of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer in the Nordics: a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

This Delphi study aimed to assess current perspectives on hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative(HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC) treatment strategies across the Nordics, and to establish where consensus exists across the Nordics on HR+/HER2- aBC treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A modified, three-round Delphi method was followed. A steering committee was appointed for study coordination, panellist selection, and questionnaire development. The questionnaires covered relevant topics on HR+/HER2- aBC treatment: treatment patterns in different lines of therapy (first [1L], second [2L], and third [3L]), oligometastatic disease, de novo aBC, brain metastases, age as influential factor, visceral crisis, radiotherapy, diagnostics, and clinical guidelines. Both open and closed-ended questions were included. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement.

RESULTS

In total, 28 experienced BC oncologists participated in the study from all five Nordic countries. Overall, topics reaching consensus included: preferred treatment approach in 1L and 2L therapy, treatment of oligometastatic disease, visceral crisis, brain metastases, and age-related treatment considerations. No consensus was reached for 3L therapy and local treatment for primary tumour in de novo aBC. Endocrine therapy (ET) combined with a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor was the treatment of choice for 1L and 2L therapy. Treatment patterns in clinical practice did not always follow recommendations in current Nordic guidelines, as seen in the case of recently approved treatments.

DISCUSSION

ET in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor is the preferred frontline treatment for HR+/HER2- aBC in the Nordics. The observed discrepancy between current guidelines and clinical practice could be due to differences in the reimbursement of novel treatments in the Nordics. Collaborative research efforts are warranted for topics that lack consensus.

'It made me feel part of the team, having my homework to do' - women and specialist nurse experiences of remote follow-up after ovarian cancer treatment: a qualitative interview study

PURPOSE

Ovarian cancer patients require monitoring for relapse post-treatment, and alternative follow-up pathways are increasing, which require in-depth exploration to ensure acceptability and inform implementation. This study aimed to explore women and specialist nurses' experiences of participating in a feasibility study of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up pathway after ovarian cancer treatment.

METHODS

The feasibility study incorporated an ePRO questionnaire, blood test and telephone consultation with a specialist nurse, instead of face-to-face hospital visits. All women and the nurses involved were invited to take part in nested semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcripts analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty interviews were conducted (16 out of 24 women who took part in the feasibility study and all 4 nurses). Four themes were identified: (1) readiness and motivators, (2) practicalities and logistics, (3) personal impact and (4) future role. An overarching theme highlighted how women strived to seek reassurance and gain confidence. Most women and nurses were positive about the ePRO pathway and would happily continue using it.

CONCLUSION

This work provides invaluable insight into the experiences of women on remote ePRO follow-up post-treatment. Important logistic and implementation issues were identified, which should inform future large-scale work to introduce and evaluate remote ePRO methods in cancer follow-up. This work highlights the key factors influencing women's readiness and acceptability of an ePRO pathway, and how services should be carefully designed to ensure patients feel reassured and confident post-treatment. Furthermore, it highlights that flexibility and patient preference should be considered in remote service delivery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02847715 (first registered 19 May 2016).

Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Access Cosmesis Scale (AVACS): A new measure for vascular access

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a cosmesis scale to evaluate the cosmetic appearance of hemodialysis (HD) arteriovenous (AV) accesses from the perspective of the patient and clinician, which could be incorporated into clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a modified Delphi process, two AV access cosmesis scale (AVACS) components were developed in a four-round Delphi panel consisting of two surveys and two consensus meetings with two rounds of patient consultation.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The Delphi panel consisted of 15 voting members including five interventional or general nephrologists, five vascular surgeons, three interventional radiologists, and two vascular access nurse coordinators. Four patients experienced with vascular access were involved in patient question development.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

For a component to be included in the AVACS, it had to meet the prespecified panel consensus agreement of ⩾70%.

RESULTS

The clinician component of the AVACS includes nine questions on the following AV access features: scarring, skin discoloration, aneurysm/pseudoaneurysms and megafistula appearance. The patient component includes six questions about future vascular access decisions, interference with work or leisure activities, clothing choices, self-consciousness or attractiveness, emotional impact, and overall appearance.

LIMITATIONS

Delphi panel methods are subjective by design, but with expert clinical opinion are used to develop classification systems and outcome measures. The developed scale requires further validation testing but is available for clinical trial use.

CONCLUSIONS

While safety and efficacy are the primary concerns when evaluating AV access for HD, cosmesis is an important component of the ESKD patient experience. The AVACS has been designed to assess this important domain; it can be used to facilitate patient care and education about vascular access choice and maintenance. AVACS can also be used to inform future research on developing new techniques for AV access creation and maintenance, particularly as relates to AV access cosmesis.

Consensus on Nasal Irrigation in Infants: A Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

Nasal irrigation is regularly used in infants to relieve upper airway symptoms. However, because there is no consensus on good practice, nasal irrigation in infants is described and applied heterogeneously among clinicians and between clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to establish consensus regarding the use of nasal irrigation in infants.

METHODS

A panel of Belgian physiotherapists and physicians experienced in performing nasal irrigation in infants were surveyed using the Delphi technique. Three survey rounds were used. Participants rated their level of (dis)agreement to each statement in each round using a 6-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined for statements which collected at least 75% of responses in agreement or disagreement. The questionnaire of Round 1 was built on nasal irrigation practice habits previously collected from parents, childcare workers, and healthcare professionals. Questionnaires from rounds 2 and 3 were amended based on experts written feedback.

RESULTS

Thirty experts (12 physicians and 18 physiotherapists) completed all 3 questionnaires. Consensus was achieved for 47 of 75 statements (63%) distributed over the following domains: "contraindications," "indications and frequency of use," "irrigation means," "solution preparation," "solution volume," "realization of the technique," and "assessment of the efficacy of nasal irrigation."

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first well-constructed consensus on good practice on nasal irrigation in infants. Consensus on several statements across different domains were established but require validation in future trials. This study also proposes direction for future research focusing on statements that did not reach consensus.

Electronic patient-reported monitoring of symptoms during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients: a feasibility study

Background

Ovarian cancer patients require monitoring for relapse. Innovative follow-up methods are increasingly being explored. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up pathway was developed for women treated for ovarian cancer. This feasibility study explored patient acceptability and compliance.

Methods

A single-arm non-blinded prospective feasibility study was undertaken at two hospitals. Participants were women who had completed treatment for ovarian cancer whose clinician was happy for them to be monitored remotely. Automated 3-monthly reminders were sent to participants to complete an ePRO questionnaire and obtain blood tests. Participants were reviewed over the phone by their clinical nurse specialist instead of attending clinic-based follow-up. The primary outcome was compliance (expected ePRO completions/blood tests) across the 12-month study period. Secondary outcomes were recruitment, attrition, resource use, symptom severity/alerts and patient acceptability.

Results

Twenty-four women consented (50% consent rate), and 13 remained on study at 12 months. Seven women relapsed, 3 chose to withdraw, and 1 withdrew for other clinical reasons. ePRO compliance was high and consistent at 75-82%, although the two hospitals differed. Adherence to the clinical protocol was evident for blood tests and contacts with staff (fewer visits, more phonecalls compared to an earlier audit). End-of-study feedback indicated high patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

Remote ePRO follow-up for ovarian cancer is feasible and acceptable to patients who are able and willing to participate. However, the low recruitment rate (ineligible + declined) indicate it is not suitable/acceptable to all patients immediately post-treatment. Further large-scale research and implementation work is required, especially in a post-COVID era.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02847715 (first registered 19/05/2016).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09817-5.

Defining a Standard Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Purpose

Advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) and its treatment cause several symptoms and impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aim to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcome (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during AOC patients’ follow-up from patients’ and healthcare professionals’ (HCP) perspective.

Methods

The project comprised five steps: 1) a literature review, 2) a focus group with patients, 3) a nominal group with HCP, 4) two round-Delphi consultations with patients and HCP, and 5) a final meeting with HCP. Delphi questionnaire was elaborated based on literature review, focus group (n=5 patients), and nominal group (n=16 HCP). The relevance of each PRO and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of the proposed PROM were assessed (Likert scale 1=strongly agree; 9=strongly disagree). The consensus was reached when at least 75% of the panelists rated it as ‘relevant’, ‘appropriate’, or ‘feasible’ (score 7-9).

Results

A total of 56 HCP [51.8% Hospital Pharmacy; 41.1% Oncology; 3.6% Nursing; and 3.6% Psycho-oncology; mean time in specialty 12.5 (8.0) years] and 10 AOC patients [mean time diagnosis 5.4 (3.0) years] participated in the 1^st round. All PROs achieved consensus regarding their relevance, except dry skin (58.0%). Agreement was reached for PRO-CTCAE to be used to assess fatigue (A:84.9%; F:75.8%), neuropathy (A:92.4%; F:77.3%), diarrhea (A:87.9%; F:88.7%), constipation (A:86.4%; F:75.8%), nausea (A:89.4%; F:75.8%), insomnia (A:81.8%; F:88.7%), abdominal bloating (A:82.2%; F:82.2%) and sexuality (A:78.8%; F:88.6%); EQ-5D to determine patients’ HRQoL (A:87.9%; F:80.3%), pain (A:87.9%; F:75.8%) and mood (A:77.7%; F:85.5%); to assess treatment adherence the Morisky-Green (A:90.9%; F:84.9%) and the dispensing register (A:80.3%; F:80.3%) were chosen. It was agreed to note in the medical record whether the patient’s treatment preferences had been considered during decision-making (A:78.8%; F:78.8%) and to use a 5-point Likert scale to assess treatment satisfaction (A:86.4%; F:86.4%). Panelists agreed (A:92.4%; F: 77.3%) to collect these PROs (1) at the time of diagnosis/relapse; (2) one month after starting treatment/change therapeutic strategy; (3) every three months during the 1^st-year of treatment; and later (4) every six months until treatment completion/change.

Conclusions

The consensus reached represents the first step towards including the patient’s perspective in AOC follow-up. The standardized collection of PROs in clinical practice may contribute to optimizing the follow-up of these patients and thus improving the quality of care.

'We do need to keep some human touch'-Patient and clinician experiences of ovarian cancer follow-up and the potential for an electronic patient-reported outcome pathway: A qualitative interview study

Objective

This study aimed to explore experiences of follow‐up after treatment and views on an electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) pathway among ovarian cancer patients and clinicians.

Methods

Semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians and patients previously treated for ovarian cancer. Interviews explored experiences of the current follow‐up pathway, patients' needs and views on an ePRO pathway enabling patients to report symptoms online rather than attend clinic‐based appointments. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis.

Results

Sixteen patients and 10 clinicians participated from four hospitals in England. Four key themes were identified: transition into follow‐up, key features of effective follow‐up, issues in follow‐up and views of ePRO. Both patients and clinicians saw benefits of an ePRO pathway alongside continued access to specialist support and discussed various practicalities (e.g., frequency, introduction and communication). Technology concerns and feelings of abandonment were highlighted as barriers. The proposed impact on clinical and individual patient outcomes was discussed.

Conclusion

Patient and clinician views on follow‐up and an ePRO pathway informed key recommendations on the development/introduction of ePRO follow‐up. Technology use in healthcare will continue to grow and may offer solutions to facilitate responsive and tailored care. Further research should explore the safety, experiences and acceptability of ePRO follow‐up.