Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

DESIGN

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

SETTING

UK health service and community.

METHODS

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?'

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Delphi method to identify expert opinion to support children's cancer referral guidelines

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for referral of children with suspected cancer was first published in 2005 and updated in 2015. The updated version relied on sparse primary care evidence and published without input from key stakeholders, for example, acute general paediatricians and paediatric haematologists/oncologists. This led to a document that fell short as a practical guide for referring physicians managing children with potentially life-threatening conditions. Following discussions between the Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG, the UK multidisciplinary professional body for healthcare professionals caring for children with cancer) and NICE, it was agreed that a practical supplement should be produced for the 2015 guidance. A prerequisite was evidence gathering from tertiary care to balance the existing primary care evidence, and a Delphi consensus method was therefore convened.

METHODS

A CCLG NICE Guidance Committee formulated 25 draft statements for review. The CCLG emailed its paediatric haematologist/oncologist membership (n=179) and 88 responded (49%). To achieve consensus, statements required ≥70% agreement from ≥60% of actual respondents, from the denominator (n=88).

RESULTS

Fifteen of 25 original statements were accepted at the first round of voting. Three of 25 statements where >50% did not support were rejected outright. One statement could not be revised without replicating a previously accepted statement. The six remaining statements were revised and a second round of voting undertaken; all six revised statements were accepted. Overall, 21 of 25 statements (84%) met consensus criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This expert opinion should help streamline suspected cancer referral in children and help optimise subsequent outcomes.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise—from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists—has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care—its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families—are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.

The evolution towards ambulatory and day-case management of febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is only second to chemotherapy administration as a cause of hospital admission during treatment for cancer. As FN may signify serious or life-threatening infection, management protocols have focussed on trying to prevent adverse outcomes in these patients. However, it is now possible to identify a subset of patients with FN at low risk of life-threatening complications in whom duration of hospitalisation and intensity of therapy can be reduced safely. This review discusses how the management of FN has evolved to enable patients identified as low risk to be treated on specific low risk management strategies, with an emphasis on some of the practical considerations for the implementation of such strategies.

Innate immune defence in the human gastrointestinal tract

The mucosal surface of the gastrointestinal tract represents a major entry point and ecological niche for many microbes. It forms an important immune barrier, absorbing nutrients, whilst preventing invasion by organisms. Of the extra-ordinarily diverse species that comprise the microbial world, relatively few organisms are able to succeed in breaching this barrier in an otherwise healthy host. The production and secretion of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) from surface epithelia and circulating immune cells are likely to play a key role in host protection and homeostasis. A number of these peptides are constitutively produced providing resident protection, whereas others are induced during infection and inflammation. In addition to directly eradicating microorganisms, it is becoming increasingly apparent that AMPs are multi-functional with diverse immuno-modulatory properties. This review focuses on three families of AMPs, defensins, cathelicidins, and lysozyme, and discusses their role in mucosal defence.