The consistency of panelists’ appropriateness ratings: do experts produce clinically logical scores for rectal cancer treatment?

Breast Implant-associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Updated Results from a Structured Expert Consultation Process

Background:

Despite increased cases published on breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), important clinical issues remain unanswered. We conducted a second structured expert consultation process to rate statements related to the diagnosis, management, and surveillance of this disease, based on their interpretation of published evidence.

Methods:

A multidisciplinary panel of 12 experts was selected based on nominations from national specialty societies, academic department heads, and recognized researchers in the United States.

Results:

Panelists agreed that (1) this disease should be called “BIA-ALCL”; (2) late seromas occurring >1 year after breast implantation should be evaluated via ultrasound, and if a seroma is present, the fluid should be aspirated and sent for culture, cytology, flow cytometry, and cell block to an experienced hematopathologist; (3) surgical removal of the affected implant and capsule (as completely as possible) should occur, which is sufficient to eradicate capsule-confined BIA-ALCL; (4) surveillance should consist of clinical follow-up at least every 6 months for at least 5 years and breast ultrasound yearly for at least 2 years; and (5) BIA-ALCL is generally a biologically indolent disease with a good prognosis, unless it extends beyond the capsule and/or presents as a mass. They firmly disagreed with statements that chemotherapy and radiation therapy should be given to all patients with BIA-ALCL.

Conclusions:

Our assessment yielded consistent results on a number of key, incompletely addressed issues regarding BIA-ALCL, but additional research is needed to support these statement ratings and enhance our understanding of the biology, treatment, and outcomes associated with this disease.

Treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell cancer: a RAND Appropriateness Panel

BACKGROUND

New developments in the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (MRCC) have suggested a need to reevaluate the role of systemic therapies. The authors convened a panel of medical and urologic oncologists to rate the appropriateness of the main options.

METHODS

The authors used the RAND/University of California-Los Angeles Appropriateness Method to evaluate systemic therapy options and cytoreductive nephrectomy. After a comprehensive literature review, an expert panel rated the appropriateness of systemic options (108 permutations) and cytoreductive nephrectomy (24 permutations) for patients with MRCC.

RESULTS

The appropriateness evaluation indicated that 27.3% of permutations were rated "appropriate," 46.9% were rated "inappropriate," and 25.8% were rated "uncertain." There was a high rate of agreement (95%). Sunitinib and sorafenib were rated appropriate for patients with low-to-moderate risk regardless of prior treatment. Temsirolimus was rated appropriate for first-line therapy for higher risk patients. Interferon-alpha and low-dose interleukin-2 were rated inappropriate or uncertain. In patients who received prior immunotherapy, cytokines were rated inappropriate. In all permutations for evaluating systemic therapy, enrollment into an investigational trial was considered appropriate, treatment with bevacizumab was uncertain, and thalidomide was inappropriate regardless of risk status or prior therapy. For good surgical risk patients with planned immunotherapy, nephrectomy was rated appropriate in patients who had limited metastatic burden regardless of tumor-related symptoms and in symptomatic patients regardless of metastatic burden. Only the most favorable combination of surgical risk, metastatic burden, and symptoms generated an "appropriate" rating for patients with planned targeted therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results begin the process of defining an appropriate role for cytokines, newer targeted therapies, and surgery in the treatment of MRCC.

Development of Quality Indicators for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer type among new cancer diagnoses in the United States. Attention to the quality of surgical care for colorectal cancer is of particular importance given the increasing numbers of colorectal cancer resections performed in the aging population. A National Cancer Institute-sponsored consensus panel produced guidelines for colorectal cancer surgery in 2000. We have updated and extended that work by using a formal process to identify and rate quality indicators as valid for care during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods.

METHODS

Using a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology, we carried out structured interviews with leaders in the field of colorectal cancer surgery and systematic reviews of the literature to identify candidate quality indicators addressing perioperative care for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. A panel of 14 colorectal surgeons, general surgeons, and surgical oncologists then evaluated and formally rated the indicators using the modified Delphi method to identify valid indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 142 candidate indicators were identified in six broad domains: privileging (which addresses surgical credentials), preoperative evaluation, patient-provider discussions, medication use, intraoperative care, and postoperative management. The expert panel rated 92 indicators as valid. These indicators address all domains of perioperative care for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology can be used to identify and rate indicators of high-quality perioperative care for patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. The indicators can be used as quality performance measures and for quality-improvement programs.