Search

Background: Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment., Aims: To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials)., Methods: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set., Results: 130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences., Conclusion: Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Bravington et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution., Methods: A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified., Results: In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting., Conclusions: A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS., Competing Interests: RG: funding: NIHR, UCB Pharma. OLA: funding: NIHR Birmingham BRC, NIHR ARC WM, UKRI, Health Foundation, Janssen, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline. Personal fees: Gilead Sciences, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline. LD: funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group, Brain Tumour Charity. Neuro Oncology Journal Associate Editor. MC: Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation and CPROR Director, NIHR senior investigator. Funding: NIHR, UKRI, NIHR Birmingham BRC, NIHR ARC WM, UK SPINE, European Regional Development Fund-Demand Hub and Health Data Research UK at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Innovate UK (part of UKRI), Macmillan Cancer Support, UCB Pharma, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead. Personal fees: Astellas, Aparito, CIS Oncology, Halfloop, Takeda, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaukos, GlaxoSmithKline, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. A relative owns GlaxoSmithKline shares., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Background: Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent., Aim: To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set., Design: The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021., Results: A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life., Conclusions: Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.

Introduction: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified., Methods and Analysis: Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021236979., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Due to their involvement in the study design, the study team members will not participate in the Delphi process or consensus meeting, other than in a facilitative role. Study team members will encourage engagement and participation in the Delphi process and consensus meeting by individuals within the networks of which they are part, as appropriate. AR is partially funded by NIHR Applied Research Collaborative West Midlands. SS is supported by Marie Curie core grant funding to the Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, grant reference MCC-FCO-11-C. MC is Director of the Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Director of the Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research and is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. She receives funding from the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, the NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre and NIHR ARC West Midlands at the at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Health Data Research UK, Innovate UK (part of UK Research and Innovation), Macmillan Cancer Support, UCB and GSK Pharma. MC has received personal fees from Astellas, Takeda, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaukos, GSK, Aparito Ltd, CIS Oncology and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) outside the submitted work. MC has led the development of SPIRIT-PRO and CONSORT-PRO international guidance and is a member of the SISAQOL and PROTEUS Consortia. OLA receives funding from the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), NIHR Applied Research Centre (ARC), West Midlands at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation, Innovate UK (part of UK Research and Innovation), Gilead Sciences Ltd and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. OLA declares personal fees from Gilead Sciences Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Merck outside the submitted work. LD has received research funding (as PI or collaborator) from the Brain Tumour Charity, EORTC Quality of Life Group, Innovative Medicines Initiatives, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, National Institute for Health Research UK and crowd funding initiatives, although not related to this specific research. LD is involved in the EORTC (as chair of the Brain Tumour Group Quality of Life Committee) and in the development of EORTC questionnaires for brain tumour patients (IADL, BN20). LD is a representative of the RANO-PRO initiative. LD is associate Editor for Neuro Oncology, dealing with papers on clinical outcomes in brain tumours., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Malignant bowel obstruction occurs in up to 50% of people with advanced ovarian and 15% of people with gastrointestinal cancers. Evaluation and comparison of interventions to manage symptoms are hampered by inconsistent evaluations of efficacy and lack of agreed core outcomes. The patient perspective is rarely incorporated., Aim: To synthesise the qualitative data regarding patient, caregiver and healthcare professionals' views and experience of malignant bowel obstruction to inform the development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of malignant bowel obstruction., Design: A qualitative systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD42020176393)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2021. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed., Results: Nine papers were included, reporting on seven studies which described the views and experiences of malignant bowel obstruction through the perspectives of 75 patients, 13 caregivers and 62 healthcare professionals. Themes across the papers included symptom burden, diverse experiences of interventions, impact on patient quality of life, implications and trajectory of malignant bowel obstruction, mixed experience of communication and the importance of realistic goals of care., Conclusion: Some of the most devastating sequelae of malignant bowel obstruction, such as pain and psychological distress, are not included routinely in its clinical or research evaluation. These data will contribute to a wider body of work to ensure the patient and caregiver perspective is recognised in the development of a core outcome set.

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and serious complication of systemic anticancer therapies. Delays in presentation increase risk of death or long-term morbidity., Background: A patient charity developed an information video for patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy including what to do if they developed symptoms of VTE. This was introduced into clinical practice in a regional cancer center and its impact compared with a district general hospital where the video was not used., Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used, comprising clinical audit data, patient surveys, and key informant interviews. The time between development of VTE symptoms and seeking medical evaluation was routinely recorded on patients attending a regional cancer-associated thrombosis service with systemic anticancer therapy-provoked VTE. The video was then embedded into clinical practice at the regional cancer center for 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in time to presentation with VTE symptoms, between patients attending the regional cancer center and the district general hospital (which acted as control). Other outcomes included impact on radiology resources, patient knowledge, and perspectives of chemotherapy nurses., Results: Addition of the video was associated with a lower mean time to presentation from 8.9 to 2.9 days (0.33 hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-7.4; P  < .0001). This may reflect greater awareness of VTE, resulting in earlier clinical presentation when they developed attributable symptoms., Conclusion: The video was associated with reduced delays in diagnosis of systemic anticancer therapy-associated VTE by 6 days, thereby reducing long-term complications., (© 2021 The Authors. Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH).)

Introduction: Studies regarding the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) report conflicting findings. This is partly due to different outcome measures being used to evaluate severity of MBO and the response to treatments. Furthermore, current outcome measures focus mainly on measurable physiological parameters which may not correlate strongly with patient-defined quality of life. The development of core outcome sets allows a consistent approach to evaluating clinical conditions taking into consideration patient, healthcare professional and researcher viewpoints. It follows an internationally recognised standard methodology. We present a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for Research and Assessment of MBO (RAMBO)., Methods: RAMBO is a multicentre study, comprising of four phases: a systematic review to examine current scope of outcome measures associated with MBO (phase I). Interviews with patients, companions and healthcare professionals will explore priorities and preferences for care and outcomes (phase II). An expert panel meeting will collate the findings into a set of outcomes (phase III), refined by consensus through a Delphi survey with key stakeholders (phase IV). The final set of outcomes will be ratified at a consensus meeting. Each step will actively include patient partners. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, respectively., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained (Wales REC 5, REF: 19/LO/1876). Study participants and relevant stakeholders will be updated with newsletters and a lay summary at the end of the study. Abstracts will be submitted to national and international conferences, result papers will be submitted to peer-reviewed, open access journals., Trial and Prospero Registration Numbers: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (1402); Systematic Literature Review (CRD42019150648); Rapid Review (CRD42020176393)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)