Developing an Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR): a protocol paper.

INTRODUCTION: Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world with variable care provided by a diverse range of clinicians. Clinical quality registries aim to identify these variations in care and provide anonymised, benchmarked feedback to clinicians and institutions to improve patient outcomes. The Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR) aims to collect population-wide, clinical-level data for the early management of cutaneous melanoma and provide anonymised feedback to healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified Delphi process will be undertaken to identify key clinical quality indicators for inclusion in the MelCOR pilot. MelCOR will prospectively collect data relevant to these quality indicators, initially for all people over the age of 18 years living in Victoria and Queensland with a melanoma diagnosis confirmed by histopathology, via a two-stage recruitment and consent process. In stage 1, existing State-based cancer registries contact the treating clinician and provide an opportunity for them to opt themselves or their patients out of direct contact with MelCOR. After stage 1, re-identifiable clinical data are provided to the MelCOR under a waiver of consent. In stage 2, the State-based cancer registry will approach the patient directly and invite them to opt in to MelCOR and share identifiable data. If a patient elects to opt in, MelCOR will be able to contact patients directly to collect patient-reported outcome measures. Aggregated data will be used to provide benchmarked, comparative feedback to participating institutions/clinicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Following the successful collection of pilot data, the feasibility of an Australia-wide roll out will be evaluated. Key quality indicator data will be the core of the MelCOR dataset, with additional data points added later. Annual reports will be issued, first to the relevant stakeholders followed by the public. MelCOR is approved by the Alfred Ethics Committee (58280/127/20).

Physical component quality of life reflects the impact of time and moderate chronic kidney disease, unlike SF-6D utility and mental component SF-36 quality of life: An AusDiab analysis.

AIM: Assessing the impact of interventions on the patient experience requires measures that are plausibly responsive to change. In a community cohort of people with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD) markers at baseline, we aimed to evaluate change in commonly used measures of quality of life (QOL) over the passage of 5 years. METHODS: Included were 6400 participants in the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) surveys with baseline and 5-year CKD and QOL measures. Changes in SF-6D utility, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores, were evaluated with regression analyses according to the baseline presence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (CKD-Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR ≤60 m/min per 1.73 m2 ) or albuminuria (urine albumin:creatinine ratio ≥3.4 mg/mmol). RESULTS: At baseline, eGFR was reduced in 2.4% of participants and 5.1% had albuminuria. Participants with reduced eGFR had a lower SF-6D and PCS, and those with albuminuria a lower PCS, compared with those without, but the differences were explained by known confounders. MCS scores were not affected by the presence of reduced eGFR or albuminuria. Over 5 years all groups exhibited stable SF-6D and MCS scores but declining unadjusted PCS scores. PCS decline was greater for those with reduced eGFR, and remained significant after adjustment (-2.7 (-4.1 to -1.3) vs. -0.8 (-1.1 to -0.6, P < 0.01). Analyses according to CKD stages were essentially unchanged. CONCLUSION: Utility and mental QOL appears stable over 5 years, unaffected by time or markers of CKD health. Physical QOL appeared to deteriorate with time, especially for those with CKD, making it a more likely candidate assessment measure for intervention and health service evaluations.