Delphi-panel analysis of appropriateness of high-dose therapy and bone marrow autotransplants in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

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.

Attributes affecting the medical school primary care experience

PURPOSE

Favorable primary care (PC) experiences might encourage more medical students to pursue generalist careers, yet academicians know little about which attributes influence the medical school PC experience. The authors sought to identify such attributes and weight their importance.

METHOD

Semistructured interviews with 16 academic generalist leaders of family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics led to the development of a Web-based survey, administered to a national sample of 126 generalist faculty. Survey respondents rated (on a nine-point Likert-like scale) the importance of each interview-generated PC medical school attribute and indicated (yes/no) whether outside experts' assessment of the attributes would be valid. The authors assessed interrater agreement.

RESULTS

Interview thematic analysis generated 58 institutional attributes in four categories: informal curriculum (23), institutional infrastructure (6), educational/curricular infrastructure (6), and specific educational experiences (23). Of these 58, 31 (53%) had median importance ratings of >7 (highly important). For 14 of these (45%), more than two-thirds of respondents indicated external expert surveys would provide a valid assessment. Of the 23 informal curriculum attributes, 20 (87%) received highly important ratings; however, more than two-thirds of respondents believed that external expert survey ratings would be valid for only 4 (20%) of them. Strong agreement occurred among respondents across the generalist fields.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic generalist educators identified several attributes as highly important in shaping the quality of the medical school PC experience. Informal curriculum attributes appeared particularly influential, but these attributes may not be validly assessed via expert surveys, suggesting the need for other measures.

Are there roles for observational database studies and structured quantification of expert opinion to answer therapy controversies in transplants?

Approaches to determine whether one transplant-related therapy is better than another include: (1) using experimental data, such as those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) using observational data, such as those from observational databases (ODBs) and (3) using conclusions from the structured quantification of expert opinion based on a consideration of evidence from RCTs, ODBs and other sources. Large RCTs are widely and appropriately regarded as the gold standard of clinical investigation. However, data from large RCTs are rarely available for transplant-related therapy questions. We discuss some of the limitations of RCTs in the transplant setting often including small size and short follow-up. These limitations are only partly solved by meta-analyses of RCTs. Data from high-quality ODBs are not only often useful in this setting but also have limitations. Biases may be difficult or impossible to identify and/or adjust for. However, ODBs have large numbers of diverse subjects receiving diverse therapies and analyses that often give answers more useful to clinicians than RCTs. Side-by-side comparisons suggest analyses from high-quality ODBs often give similar conclusions to meta-analyses of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analyses combining data from RCTs and ODBs are sometimes appropriate. Quantitation of expert opinion, when of high quality, is also useful: experts rarely disagree under precisely defined circumstances and their consensus conclusions are often concordant with results of high-quality RCTs and ODBs. We suggest increased use of ODBs and expert opinion as reliable and effective ways to determine relative efficacies of new therapies in transplant settings.

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.