Core outcome research measures in anal cancer (CORMAC): protocol for systematic review, qualitative interviews and Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in anal cancer

Outcomes of patients with anal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation: A single centre experience

Background

Anal cancers are uncommon neoplasms that make up to <1% of all tumours globally. Concurrent chemoradiation remains the standard of care treatment for patients who present with non-metastatic anal squamous cell carcinomas (ASCCs).

Methods

We aimed to evaluate the response rate and 2-year survival outcome of the definitive chemoradiation approach in patients with non-metastatic ASCCs of our population. We conducted a cross-sectional review of these patient populations who were treated and then followed after completion of treatment at our institute during the last 10 years.

Results

A total of 17 patients were enrolled after fulfillment of the eligibility criteria. The responses were documented in 16 patients through magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography of the pelvis, done at 3 months of treatment completion. More than 80% of the patients had complete radiological responses. Among the surviving participants, the 2-year disease-free survival rate was found to be more than two-thirds. Approximately 20% of the study participants had disease recurrence during the subsequent clinic visits following treatment completion.

Conclusion

This review emphasises the impact of definitive chemo-radiation in achieving radiological and clinical responses in patients with non-metastatic ASCCs. Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first review to highlight anal cancer's incidence and characteristics in Pakistan.

Research Priorities in Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery: An International Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, the number of prehabilitation trials has increased significantly. The identification of key research priorities is vital in guiding future research directions. Thus, the aim of this collaborative study was to define key research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery.

METHODS

The Delphi methodology was implemented over three rounds of surveys distributed to prehabilitation experts from across multiple specialties, tumour streams and countries via a secure online platform. In the first round, participants were asked to provide baseline demographics and to identify five top prehabilitation research priorities. In successive rounds, participants were asked to rank research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was considered if > 70% of participants indicated agreement on each research priority.

RESULTS

A total of 165 prehabilitation experts participated, including medical doctors, physiotherapists, dieticians, nurses, and academics across four continents. The first round identified 446 research priorities, collated within 75 unique research questions. Over two successive rounds, a list of 10 research priorities reached international consensus of importance. These included the efficacy of prehabilitation on varied postoperative outcomes, benefit to specific patient groups, ideal programme composition, cost efficacy, enhancing compliance and adherence, effect during neoadjuvant therapies, and modes of delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative international study identified the top 10 research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. The identified priorities inform research strategies, provide future directions for prehabilitation research, support resource allocation and enhance the prehabilitation evidence base in cancer patients undergoing surgery.

Development of a risk prediction tool for patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer undergoing pelvic exenteration: protocol for a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) surgery represents the only potentially curative treatment option for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer (LARRC). Given the potential morbidity, whether or not PE should be recommended for an individual patient presents a major decisional conflict. This study aims to identify the outcomes of PE for which there is consensus among patients, carers and clinicians regarding their importance in guiding treatment decision-making, and to develop a risk prediction tool which predicts these outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be conducted at a specialist PE centre, and employ a mixed-methods study design, divided into three distinct phases. In phase 1, outcomes of PE will be identified through a comprehensive systematic review of the literature (phase 1a), followed by exploration of the experiences of individuals who have undergone PE for LARRC and their carers (phase 1b, target sample size 10-20 patients and 5-10 carers). In phase 2, a survey of patients, their carers and clinicians will be conducted using Delphi methodology to explore consensus around the outcomes of highest priority and the level of influence each outcome should have on treatment decision-making. In phase 3 a, risk prediction tool will be developed using data from a single PE referral centre (estimated sample size 500 patients) to predict priority outcomes using multivariate modelling, and externally validated using data from an international PE collaboration.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted for phases 1 and 2 (X22-0422 and 2022/ETH02659) and for maintenance of the database used in phase 3 (X13-0283 and HREC/13/RPAH/504). Informed consent will be obtained from participants in phases 1b and 2; a waiver of consent for secondary use of data in phase 3 will be sought. Study results will be submitted for publication in international and/or national peer reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022351909.

Engaging pregnant individuals and healthcare professionals in an international mixed methods study to develop a core outcome set for studies on placenta accreta spectrum disorder (COPAS): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorder is a life-threatening condition that may result in serious maternal complications, including mortality. The placenta which is pathologically adherent to the uterine wall, places individuals at high risk of major haemorrhage during the third stage of labour. Current research reports on PAS disorder outcomes have highly variable levels of information, which is therefore difficult for investigators to aggregate to inform practice. There is an urgent need to harmonise data collection in prospective studies to identify and implement best practices for management. One approach to standardise outcomes across any health area via the use of core outcome sets (COSs), which are consensus-derived standardised sets of outcomes that all studies for a particular condition should measure and report. This protocol outlines the steps for developing a COS for PAS disorder (COPAS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol outlines steps for the creation of COPAS. The first step, a systematic review, will identify all reported outcomes in the scientific literature. The second step will use qualitative one-on-one interviews to identify additional outcomes identified as important by patients and healthcare professionals that are not reported in the published literature. Outcomes from the first two steps will be combined to form an outcome inventory. This outcome inventory will inform the third step which is a Delphi survey that encourages agreement between patients and healthcare professionals on which outcomes are most important for inclusion in the COS. The fourth step, a consensus group meeting of representative participants, will finalise outcomes for inclusion in the PAS disorder COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has obtained Research Ethics Board approval from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (#2338, #1488). We will aim to publish the study findings in an international peer-reviewed OBGYN journal.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

COMET Core Outcome Set Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1127.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173426.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study

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.

Core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy: a qualitative study with parents

OBJECTIVE

To identify the outcomes considered important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia in high-income and low- to middle-income countries (LMiCs), as part of the outcome-identification process in developing a core outcome set (COS) for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving 25 semistructured interviews with parents or other family members (caregivers) of infants who were diagnosed with, and treated for, neonatal encephalopathy, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia.

SETTING

Interviews were conducted in high-income countries (HiCs) (n=11) by Zoom video conferencing software and in LMiCs (n=14) by phone or face to face.

FINDINGS

Parents identified 54 outcomes overall, which mapped to 16 outcome domains. The domains identified were neurological outcomes, respiratory outcomes, gastrointestinal outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, motor development, cognitive development, development (psychosocial), development (special senses), cognitive development, development (speech and social), other organ outcomes, survival/living outcomes, long-term disability, hospitalisation, parent-reported outcomes and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into the outcomes that parents of infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy have identified as the most important, to be considered in the process of developing a COS for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. We also provide description of the processes employed to ensure the inclusion of participants from LMiCs as well as HiCs.

Study Protocol: Core Outcome Set for cranioplasty following stroke or TBI 'COAST Study'

BACKGROUND

Core Outcome sets (COS) are important and necessary as they help standardize reporting in research studies. Cranioplasty following traumatic brain injury or stroke is becoming increasingly common leading to an ever growing clinical and research interest especially regarding the optimal material, cost-effectiveness, and timing of cranioplasty concerning neurological recovery and complications. Consequently, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes from such diverse studies has led to a limited meta-analysis ability, with the ongoing risk of outcome reporting bias.

OBJECTIVE

To define a standardized COS for reporting in all future TBI and stroke cranioplasty studies.

METHODS

An international steering committee has been formed to guide the development of the COS. In addition, recommendations from other clinical initiatives such as COMET (Core Outcomes and Effectiveness Trials) and OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) have been adhered to. The first phase of the project is data-collection through a systematic review and qualitative study. The second phase will be the COS-formation through a Delphi survey and consensus meeting. A definition of consensus will be decided and agreed upon before the Delphi survey begins to avoid bias, which is planned for the end of 2021.

RESULTS

The development of a cranioplasty COS that can be applied in future research, helping to align future studies, building an increased understanding of cranioplasty and its impact on a patients function and recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study should result in consensus on a COS for cranioplasty following TBI or stroke.

CLINICALTRIAL

The study has been registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database for COS development.

Study Protocol on Defining Core Outcomes and Data Elements in Chronic Subdural Haematoma

BACKGROUND

Core Outcome Sets (COSs) are necessary to standardize reporting in research studies. This is urgently required in the field of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), one of the most common disease entities managed in neurosurgery and the topic of several recent trials. To complement the development of a COS, a standardized definition and baseline Data Elements (DEs) to be collected in CSDH patients, would further improve study quality and comparability in this heterogeneous population.

OBJECTIVE

To, first, define a standardized COS for reporting in all future CSDH studies; and, second, to identify a unified CSDH Definition and set of DEs for reporting in future CSDH studies.

METHODS

The overall study design includes a Delphi survey process among 150 respondents from 2 main stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals or researchers (HCPRs) and Patients or carers. HCPR, patients and carers will all be invited to complete the survey on the COS, only the HCPR survey will include questions on definition and DE.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES

It is expected that the COS, definition, and DE will be developed through this Delphi survey and that these can be applied in future CSDH studies. This is necessary to help align future research studies on CSDH and to understand the effects of different treatments on patient function and recovery.

DISCUSSION

This Delphi survey should result in consensus on a COS and a standardized CSDH Definition and DEs to be used in future CSDH studies.

Inconsistency and low transparency were found between core outcome set protocol and full text publication: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess inconsistencies between individual protocols and associated full-text publications in the development of core outcome sets (COSs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Protocols and subsequent full-text publications were retrieved by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database from inception to October 1, 2019. We summarized changes in the general and methodological characteristics by comparing the protocols with the full-text publications and reported change as information frequency and proportion.

RESULTS

A total of 24 protocols and 32 corresponding full-text publications that encompassed 14 study topics were identified from databases. In the identified initial list of outcomes, five COSs (20.8%) changed the included study type, none of which explained the reasons for these changes. In addition, eight COSs showed inconsistencies between the protocols and full-text publications in the searched databases, of which, only two studies explained the reasons for these changes. Compared with the protocols, three COSs changed the number of Delphi rounds, eight COSs changed the participants (stakeholder groups), and three COSs changed the consensus definition of the Delphi survey. Only two COSs explained the reason for changing the number of Delphi rounds, and none of the studies explained why the participants changed. For the face-to-face consensus meeting, we found that nine COSs changed the participants and none explained the reasons for these changes.

CONCLUSION

Our study found many inconsistencies between protocols and the full-text publications concerning COS development. These inconsistencies related to the included study types, databases searched, Delphi surveys, and face-to-face consensus meetings. As it is necessary to publish protocols before developing COSs, transparency regarding any changes to the methods is needed.

Clinical characteristics and prognosis of anal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective audit of 144 patients from 11 cancer hospitals in southern China

Background

The incidence of anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) has been steadily growing globally in the past decade. Clinical data on anal SCC from China are rare. We conducted this study to describe the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of anal SCC in China and explore prognostic factors of outcomes among patients with anal SCC.

Methods

We audited demographic characteristics, relevant symptoms, risk factors, treatment modalities and outcomes for patients diagnosed with anal SCC at 11 medical institutions in China between January 2007 and July 2018.

Results

A total of 144 patients (109 females) were diagnosed with SCC during this period. Median age at initial diagnosis was 52.0 (interquartile range: 46.0–61.8) years. The most common symptoms were bleeding (n = 93, 64.6%), noticing a lump (n = 49, 34.0%), and pain (n = 47, 32.6%). The proportion of patients at the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages I-IV were 10 (6.9%), 22 (15.3%), 61 (42.4%) and 8 (5.6%), respectively, and AJCC stages in 43 (29.9%) patients were unknown. Thirty-six patients (25.0%) underwent abdominoperineal resection initially. Univariable analysis showed that T stage predicted recurrence-free survival (RFS) (Hazard ratio [HR] = 3.03, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 1.10–8.37, p = 0.032), and age group (HR = 2.90, 95% CI: 1.12–7.49, p = 0.028), AJCC stage (HR = 4.56, 95% CI: 1.02–20.35, p = 0.046), and N stage (HR = 3.05, 95% CI: 1.07–8.74, p = 0.038) predicted overall survival (OS).

Conclusions

T stage was identified as prognostic factor of RFS, and age, AJCC stage, and N stage were identified as prognostic factors of OS. Improving symptom awareness and earlier presentation among patients potentially at risk for anal SCC should be encouraged. Familiarity with the standard treatment among health care providers in China should be further improved.

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain.

CONCLUSION

Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.

Development of a core outcome set to use in the research and assessment of malignant bowel obstruction: protocol for the RAMBO study

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).

Core outcome set measurement for future clinical trials in acute myeloid leukemia: the HARMONY study protocol using a multi-stakeholder consensus-based Delphi process and a final consensus meeting

Background

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults and has an unacceptably low cure rate. In recent years, a number of new treatment strategies and compounds were developed for the treatment of AML. There were several randomized controlled clinical trials with the objective to improve patients’ management and patients’ outcome in AML. Unfortunately, these trials are not always directly comparable since they do not measure the same outcomes, and currently there are no core outcome sets that can be used to guide outcome selection and harmonization in this disease area. The HARMONY (Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms in Hematology) Alliance is a public-private European network established in 2017 and currently includes 53 partners and 32 associated members from 22 countries. Amongst many other goals of the HARMONY Alliance, Work Package 2 focuses on defining outcomes that are relevant to each hematological malignancy. Accordingly, this pilot study will be performed to define a core outcome set in AML.

Methods

The pilot study will use a three-round Delphi survey and a final consensus meeting to define a core outcome set. Participants will be recruited from different stakeholder groups, including patients, clinicians, regulators and members of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. At the pre-Delphi stage, a literature research was conducted followed by several semi-structured interviews of clinical public and private key opinion leaders. Subsequently, the preliminary outcome list was discussed in several multi-stakeholder face-to-face meetings. The Delphi survey will reduce the preliminary outcome list to essential core outcomes. After completion of the last Delphi round, a final face-to-face meeting is planned to achieve consensus about the core outcome set in AML.

Discussion

As part of the HARMONY Alliance, the pilot Delphi aims to define a core outcome set in AML on the basis of a multi-stakeholder consensus. Such a core outcome set will help to allow consistent comparison of future clinical trials and real-world evidence research and ensures that appropriate outcomes valued by a range of stakeholders are measured within future trials.

Quality of Life After Radiotherapy for Rectal and Anal Cancer

Purpose of Review

With advances in radiation therapy (RT) techniques for rectal and anal cancers allowing for the modulation of critical normal tissues, there has been an increased emphasis on improving the quality of life (QOL) of cancer survivors. Herein, we review the literature to examine the impact of RT on QOL and patient reported outcomes (PROs) to better inform providers about the challenges of survivorship.

Recent Findings

Large systematic reviews, recent studies and long-term follow-up of pivotal clinical trials have shown that RT impacts QOL, particularly fecal continence and sexual function. Modern preoperative RT techniques allow for decreased dose to organs-at-risk will likely improve QOL.

Summary

RT, though critical in the treatment of rectal and anal cancer, has a profound impact on QOL for some patients. Recent studies have included PROs and validated QOL metrics to better inform providers and patients.

PREgnancy Nutrition: A protocol for the development of a Core Outcome Set (PRENCOS)

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for pregnancy nutrition research that is relevant to varied stakeholders and resource settings.

METHODS

This study has three distinct phases. The first phase involves generating a list of outcomes for consideration for the COS. This includes a systematic review of studies evaluating nutrition during pregnancy where all outcomes reported in relevant literature will be extracted. Qualitative interviews with currently or previously pregnant women will also be conducted. This step will supplement the findings of the systematic review by identifying additional outcomes of importance to this stakeholder group. In the second phase of the study, healthcare professionals, researchers, and mothers from various international resource settings will be invited to participate in a two-round modified Delphi survey. The aim of the survey is to gain consensus on which outcomes are most important to include in the COS. Finally, a face-face consensus meeting will be held with a select group of participants to finalize the COS.

CONCLUSION

This COS will support standardization of outcome reporting in pregnancy nutrition research and ensure that selected outcomes are considered important by a variety of stakeholders. This will enhance the evidence behind nutrition interventions in pregnancy to improve outcomes for pregnant women.

A multi-disciplinary model of survivorship care following definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer

Following definitive chemoradiation for anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC), patients face a variety of chronic issues including: bowel dysfunction, accelerated bone loss, sexual dysfunction, and psychosocial distress. The increasing incidence of this disease, high cure rates, and significant long-term sequelae warrant increased focus on optimal survivorship care following definitive chemoradiation. In order to establish our survivorship care model for ASCC patients, a multi-disciplinary team of experts performed a comprehensive literature review and summarized best practices for the multi-disciplinary management of this unique patient population. We reviewed principle domains of our survivorship approach: (1) management of chronic toxicities; (2) sexual health; (3) HIV management in affected patients; (4) psychosocial wellbeing; and (5) surveillance for disease recurrence and survivorship care delivery. We provide recommendations for the optimization of survivorship care for ASCC patients can through a multi-disciplinary approach that supports physical and psychological wellness.

[Anal channel cancer: customization of dose, volume and breaching]

The conservative treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of anal canal by irradiation is recommended as first indication. Despite its rarity, significant improvements were obtained by retrospective or prospective clinical studies these 20 past years, evaluating concomitant chemotherapy and IMRT. Nevertheless, the individualisation of the treatment, over dose distribution, has poor data available. Fractionation remains classic (1.8-2.0Gy/Fr), but the optimal dose level remains under discussion. The strategy concerning the volumes and doses for the prophylactic volumes remains under discussion. This paper will describe the data published, and the recommendations of working Groups, and the main options under evaluation. To conclude, today only the absence of gap is recommended, the benefit of a one-step schedule reducing the treatment time, then increasing local control and survival, but personalised schedules remain under investigation.

A core outcome set for clinical trials of chemoradiotherapy interventions for anal cancer (CORMAC): a patient and health-care professional consensus

Chemoradiotherapy is the primary treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, but variations in the reported outcomes have restricted between-study comparisons. Treatment-related morbidity is considerable; however, no trial has comprehensively quantified long-term side-effects or quality of life. Therefore, we established the first international health-care professional and patient consensus to develop a core outcome set, using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials method. We used the results from our previous systematic review and combined them in this Review with patient interviews to derive a comprehensive list of outcomes, followed by a two-round Delphi survey completed by 149 participants (55 patients and 94 health-care professionals) from 11 countries. The Delphi results were discussed at a consensus meeting of health-care professionals and patients. Agreement was reached on 19 outcomes across four domains: disease activity, survival, toxicity, and life impact. Implementation of the Core Outcome Research Measures in Anal Cancer (CORMAC) set in future trials will serve as a framework to achieve standardisation, facilitate selection of health-area-specific evaluation tools, reduce redundancy of outcome lists, allow between-study comparisons, and ultimately enhance the relevance of trial findings to health-care professionals, trialists, and patients.

Non-invasive ventilation for the management of children with bronchiolitis (NOVEMBR): a feasibility study and core outcome set development protocol

BACKGROUND

Bronchiolitis is an acute lower respiratory infection which predominantly affects young children. Treatment for bronchiolitis is limited to supportive therapy. Nasal oxygen therapy is part of routine care, and delivery now incorporates varying levels of non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure and/or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. Despite wide clinical use, there remains a lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Furthermore, research in this field is hampered by the use of multiple outcome measures in current clinical trials.

METHODS/DESIGN

This mixed methods study includes a systematic review of outcome measures, telephone interviews with parents, focus group workshops and a Delphi survey with healthcare professionals and parents. These methods will be used to identify and prioritise outcomes for inclusion in a core outcome set and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a future randomised controlled trial comparing different modes of oxygen therapy for bronchiolitis. UK hospitals will also be contacted and asked to complete a survey to provide an overview of current practice to enable assessment of capability and capacity to run a future clinical trial.

DISCUSSION

This study will facilitate the design of a future clinical trial of non-invasive ventilation in children with bronchiolitis which is acceptable to important stakeholders. Furthermore, core outcome set development will improve standardisation, measurement and reporting of clinically important outcomes in bronchiolitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN75766048. Registered on 18 December 2017. This study was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN Registry and on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database (15 September 2017).

Systematic review of outcome measures following chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer (CORMAC)

AIM

Six Phase III randomized trials have determined the effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy as primary treatment for anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC), but outcomes reported in these trials varied widely, hindering evidence synthesis. To improve reporting in all future trials, we aim to develop a core outcomes set (COS). As the first stage of COS development, we undertook a systematic review to summarize the outcomes reported in studies evaluating chemoradiotherapy for ASCC.

METHOD

Systematic literature searches identified studies evaluating radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for ASCC. Outcomes and accompanying definitions were extracted verbatim and categorized into domains.

RESULTS

From 5170 abstracts, we identified 95 eligible studies, reporting 1192 outcomes and 533 unique terms. We collapsed these terms into 86 standardized outcomes and five domains: survival; disease activity; life impact [including quality of life (QoL)]; delivery of care; and toxicity. The most commonly reported domains were survival and disease activity, reported in 74 (86%) and 54 (62%) studies, respectively. No outcome was reported in every publication. Over half (43/86) of the standardized outcome terms were reported in fewer than five studies, and 21 (25%) were reported in a single study only. There was wide variation in definitions of disease-free survival, colostomy-free survival and progression-free survival (PFS). Anal continence was reported in only 35 (41%) studies.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes reported in studies evaluating chemoradiotherapy for ASCC were heterogenous and definitions varied widely. Outcomes likely to be important to patients, such as ano-rectal function, toxicity and QoL, have been neglected. A COS for future trials will address these issues.