Qualitative study exploring the design of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system for suspected head and neck cancer referrals: protocol for work packages 1 and 2 within the EVEREST-HN programme.

INTRODUCTION: Between 2009/2010 and 2019/2020, England witnessed an increase in suspected head and neck cancer (sHNC) referrals from 140 to 404 patients per 100 000 population. 1 in 10 patients are not seen within the 2-week target, contributing to patient anxiety. We will develop a pathway for sHNC referrals, based on the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator. The evolution of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system to redesign the sHNC referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) Programme comprises six work packages (WPs). This protocol describes WP1 and WP2. WP1 will obtain an understanding of language to optimise the SYmptom iNput Clinical (SYNC) system patient-reported symptom questionnaire for sHNC referrals and outline requirements for the SYNC system. WP2 will codesign key elements of the SYNC system, including the SYNC Questionnaire, and accompanying behaviour change materials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WP1 will be conducted at three acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts with variation in service delivery models and ensuring a broad mixture of social, economic and cultural backgrounds of participants. Up to 150 patients with sHNC (n=50 per site) and 15 clinicians (n=5 per site) will be recruited. WP1 will use qualitative methods including interviews, observation and recordings of consultations. Rapid qualitative analysis and inductive thematic analysis will be used to analyse the data. WP2 will recruit lay patient representatives to participate in online focus groups (n=8 per focus group), think-aloud technique and experience-based codesign and will be analysed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The committee for clinical research at The Royal Marsden, a research ethics committee and the Health Research Authority approved this protocol. All participants will give informed consent. Ethical issues of working with patients on an urgent cancer diagnostic pathway have been considered. Findings will be disseminated via journal publications, conference presentations and public engagement activities.

Acute and Late Adverse Events Associated With Radical Radiation Therapy Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Clinician and Patient Toxicity Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to determine the clinician and patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments currently usedin randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radical radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer to report acute and late adverse events (AEs), review the quality of methodology and PRO reporting, and report the prevalence of acute and late AEs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched between April and August 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the PRO Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In all, 1149 records were screened, and 21 articles were included in the final review. RESULTS: We determined the acute and late AEs for 9040 patients enrolled in 15 different RCTs. Only clinician reported instruments were used to report acute AEs <3 months (eg, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]). For late clinician reporting, the Late Effects on Normal Tissues-Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic scale and RTOG were used and were often augmented with additional items to provide comprehensive coverage of sexual functioning and anorectal symptoms. Some late AEs were reported (48% articles) using PROs (eg, ULCA-PCI [University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index], FACT-G and P [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General & Prostate Module], EORTC QLQC-30 + PR25 [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire & Prostate Module]); however, a definitive "preferred" instrument was not evident. DISCUSSION: Our findings are at odds with recent movements toward including patient voices in reporting of AEs and patient engagement in clinical research. We recommend including PRO to evaluate radical radiation therapy before, during, and after the treatment to fully capture patient experiences, and we support the development of predictive models for late effects based on the severity of early toxicity. CONCLUSION: Patient reporting of acute and late AEs is underrepresented in radiation therapy trials. We recommend working toward a consistent approach to PRO assessment of radiation therapy-related AEs.