A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes for Breast Cancer: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) Initiative.

A major challenge in value-based health care is the lack of standardized health outcomes measurements, hindering optimal monitoring and comparison of the quality of health care across different settings globally. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled a multidisciplinary international working group, comprised of 26 health care providers and patient advocates, to develop a standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer (BC). The working group convened via 8 teleconferences and completed a follow-up survey after each meeting. A modified 2-round Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the outcomes and case-mix variables to be included. Patient focus group meetings (8 early or metastatic BC patients) and online anonymized surveys of 1225 multinational BC patients and survivors were also conducted to obtain patients' input. The standard set encompasses survival and cancer control, and disutility of care (eg, acute treatment complications) outcomes, to be collected through administrative data and/or clinical records. A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is recommended to capture long-term degree of health outcomes. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline. The ICHOM will endeavor to achieve wide buy-in of this set and facilitate its implementation in routine clinical practice in various settings and institutions worldwide.

A framework for evaluating diagnostic discordance in pathology discovered during research studies.

CONTEXT: Little is known about the frequency of discordant diagnoses identified during research. OBJECTIVE: To describe diagnostic discordance identified during research and apply a newly designed research framework for investigating discordance. DESIGN: Breast biopsy cases (N = 407) from registries in Vermont and New Hampshire were independently reviewed by a breast pathology expert. The following research framework was developed to assess those cases: (1) compare the expert review and study database diagnoses, (2) determine the clinical significance of diagnostic discordance, (3) identify and correct data errors and verify the existence of true diagnostic discrepancies, (4) consider the impact of borderline cases, and (5) determine the notification approach for verified disagreements. RESULTS: Initial overall discordance between the original diagnosis recorded in our research database and a breast pathology expert was 32.2% (131 of 407). This was reduced to less than 10% after following the 5-step research framework. Detailed review identified 12 cases (2.9%) with data errors (2 in the underlying pathology registry, 3 with incomplete slides sent for expert review, and 7 with data abstraction errors). After excluding the cases with data errors, 38 cases (9.6%) among the remaining 395 had clinically meaningful discordant diagnoses (κ = 0.82; SE, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.87). Among these 38 cases, 20 (53%) were considered borderline between 2 diagnoses by either the original pathologist or the expert. We elected to notify the pathology registries and facilities regarding discordant diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the types and sources of diagnostic discordance uncovered in research studies may lead to improved scientific data and better patient care.

Can an immunoassay become a standard technique in detecting oxycodone and its metabolites?

Opiate toxicology testing is routinely performed in the hospital setting to identify abusers and/or to determine those patients who are not taking prescribed opiate analgesics such as oxycodone. Commercially available assays for opiate detection in urine have decreased sensitivity for oxycodone, which contributes to a high false-negative rate. Functioning as a beta site, our Veterans Affairs hospital evaluated a new enzyme immunoassay, DRI Oxycodone Assay, for its use in the qualitative and semiquantitative detection of oxycodone in urine. We hypothesize that an immunoassay for oxycodone with superior sensitivity and specificity, when compared to the traditional opiate assays, would reduce the need for more expensive and time-consuming confirmatory testing. We used the new liquid homogenous enzyme immunoassay to determine oxycodone results in a total of 148 urine samples from 4 different sample groups. Gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy was subsequently used to confirm the presence or absence of oxycodone (or its primary metabolite, noroxycodone). We also evaluated within-run, between-run, and linearity studies and conducted a crossover study to establish a cutoff value for oxycodone. In our patient population, we used the new DRI immunoassay to evaluate 17,069 urine samples to estimate oxycodone misuse profiles (patients not taking prescribed oxycodone or taking oxycodone without a prescription) during a 4-month period. The sensitivity and specificity of the new oxycodone immunoassay were 97.7% and 100%, respectively, at the cutoff concentration of 300 ng/mL. The assay linearity was 1,250 ng/mL, and the sensitivity was 10 ng/mL. Within-run precision and between-run coefficient of variation were 2.3% and 1.8%, respectively. None of the 15 compounds that we evaluated for interference had crossover significant enough to produce a positive oxycodone result when using 300 ng/mL as the cutoff value. None of the 17,069 oxycodone immunoassays was followed with a request for confirmation. Among patients with positive results (n = 224), 93 (41.5%) were not prescribed oxycodone. The new DRI Oxycodone Assay is a sensitive and specific screening test for the determination of oxycodone. The improved opiate screening results may lead to better patient and prescription management, to decreased laboratory spending, and to the identification of oxycodone abusers, which could result in decreased oxycodone-related mortality.