RESUMEN
Background: Brain metastases account for more than 50% of all intracranial tumors and are associated with poor outcomes. Treatment decisions in this highly heterogenous cohort remain controversial due to the myriad of treatment options available, and there is no clearly defined standard of care. The prognosis in brain metastasis patients varies widely with tumor type, extracranial disease burden and patient performance status. Decision-making regarding treatment is, therefore, tailored to each patient and their disease. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study assessing survival outcomes following surgery for brain metastases over a 50-month period (April 1, 2014-June 30, 2018). We compared predicted survival using the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (ds-GPA) with actual survival. Results: A total of 186 patients were included in our cohort. Regression analysis demonstrated no significant correlation between actual and predicted outcome. The most common reason for exclusion was insufficient information being available to the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting to allow GPA calculation. Conclusions: In this study, we demonstrate that "predicted survival" using the ds-GPA does not correlate with "actual survival" in our operated patient cohort. We also identify a shortcoming in the amount of information available at MDT in order to implement the GPA appropriately. Patient selection for aggressive therapies is crucial, and this study emphasizes the need for treatment decisions to be individualized based on patient and cancer clinical characteristics.
RESUMEN
AIM: To agree wording of level descriptors for a measure of functional outcome of children's eating and drinking. METHOD: An online, modified Delphi method was used to gather feedback on current level descriptor wording and generate rewording suggestions. Thirty speech and language therapists, working in a variety of settings and geographical locations, were invited to be part of the Delphi expert panel. Content analysis was used to evaluate participants' comments and develop consensus level descriptors. Consensus for acceptable wording was set at 80% agreement. Face validity was assessed using 5-point Likert scales. RESULTS: Nineteen expert speech and language therapists (median experience 18 years) completed round one; 15 out of 19 completed round two. Level descriptor rating reached 80% agreement in two rounds. Additionally, 93% of participants agreed the scale would accurately capture change in their setting, with 87% likely to use the scale in practice. INTERPRETATION: This study has produced agreed wording for a functional measure of eating and drinking activity suitable for use with paediatrics feeding disorders, regardless of disease aetiology, presentation, age, or setting. Potential for widespread use is supported. Further evaluation of the tool's reliability and validity is required.
