The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. METHODS: An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. RESULTS: From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. CONCLUSION: PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

Monitoring quality of care in hepatocellular carcinoma: A modified Delphi consensus.

Although there are several established international guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there is limited information detailing specific indicators of good quality care. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of quality indicators (QIs) to underpin the management of HCC. We undertook a modified, two-round, Delphi consensus study comprising a working group and experts involved in the management of HCC as well as consumer representatives. QIs were derived from an extensive review of the literature. The role of the participants was to identify the most important and measurable QIs for inclusion in an HCC clinical quality registry. From an initial 94 QIs, 40 were proposed to the participants. Of these, 23 QIs ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final set. This included (a) nine related to the initial diagnosis and staging, including timing to diagnosis, required baseline clinical and laboratory assessments, prior surveillance for HCC, diagnostic imaging and pathology, tumor staging, and multidisciplinary care; (b) thirteen related to treatment and management, including role of antiviral therapy, timing to treatment, localized ablation and locoregional therapy, surgery, transplantation, systemic therapy, method of response assessment, and supportive care; and (c) one outcome assessment related to surgical mortality. Conclusion: We identified a core set of nationally agreed measurable QIs for the diagnosis, staging, and management of HCC. The adherence to these best practice QIs may lead to system-level improvement in quality of care and, ultimately, improvement in patient outcomes, including survival.

Prognostic models to predict survival in patients with pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has poor survival. Current treatments offer little likelihood of cure or long-term survival. This systematic review evaluates prognostic models predicting overall survival in patients diagnosed with PDAC. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of eight electronic databases from their date of inception through to December 2019. Studies that published models predicting survival in patients with PDAC were identified. RESULTS: 3297 studies were identified; 187 full-text articles were retrieved and 54 studies of 49 unique prognostic models were included. Of these, 28 (57.1%) were conducted in patients with advanced disease, 17 (34.7%) with resectable disease, and four (8.2%) in all patients. 34 (69.4%) models were validated, and 35 (71.4%) reported model discrimination, with only five models reporting values >0.70 in both derivation and validation cohorts. Many (n = 27) had a moderate to high risk of bias and most (n = 33) were developed using retrospective data. No variables were unanimously found to be predictive of survival when included in more than one study. CONCLUSION: Most prognostic models were developed using retrospective data and performed poorly. Future research should validate instruments performing well locally in international cohorts and investigate other potential predictors of survival.

The association between quality care and outcomes for a real-world population of Australian patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study: (i) assessed compliance with a consensus set of quality indicators (QIs) in pancreatic cancer (PC); and (ii) evaluated the association between compliance with these QIs and survival. METHODS: Four years of data were collected for patients diagnosed with PC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multivariable analysis tested the relationship between significant patient and hospital characteristics, patient cluster effects within hospitals and survival. RESULTS: 1061 patients were eligible for this study. Significant association with improved survival were: (i) in the potentially resectable group having adjuvant chemotherapy administered following surgery or a reason documented (HR, 0.29; 95 CI, 0.19-0.46); (ii) in the locally advanced group included having chemotherapy ± chemoradiation, or a reason documented for not undergoing treatment (HR, 0.38; 95 CI, 0.25-0.58); and (iii) in the metastatic disease group included having documented performance status at presentation (HR, 0.65; 95 CI, 0.47-0.89), being seen by an oncologist in the absence of treatment (HR, 0.48; 95 CI, 0.31-0.77), and disease management discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting (HR, 0.79; 95 CI, 0.64-0.96). CONCLUSION: Capture of a concise data set has enabled quality of care to be assessed.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend discussion by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) to review and plan the management of patients for a variety of cancers. However, not all patients diagnosed with cancer are presented at an MDT. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify the factors (barriers and enablers) influencing presentation of all patients to, and the perceived value of, MDT meetings in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and; (2) to identify potential interventions that could overcome modifiable barriers and enhance enablers using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists, palliative care specialists and nurse specialists based in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via videoconferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, deidentified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the TDF. Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses. RESULTS: In total, 29 specialists were interviewed over a 4-month period. Twenty-two themes and 40 belief statements relevant to all the TDF domains were generated. Key enablers influencing MDT practices included a strong organisational focus (social/professional role and identity), beliefs about the benefits of an MDT discussion (beliefs about consequences), the use of technology, for example, videoconferencing (environmental context and resources), the motivation to provide good quality care (motivation and goals) and collegiality (social influences). Barriers included: absence of palliative care representation (skills), the number of MDT meetings (environmental context and resources), the cumulative cost of staff time (beliefs about consequences), the lack of capacity to discuss all patients within the allotted time (beliefs about capabilities) and reduced confidence to participate in discussions (social influences). CONCLUSIONS: The internal and external organisational structures surrounding MDT meetings ideally need to be strengthened with the development of agreed evidence-based protocols and referral pathways, a focus on resource allocation and capabilities, and a culture that fosters widespread collaboration for all stages of pancreatic cancer.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of protocol-based imaging in pancreatic cancer: A qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Accurate pre-operative imaging plays a vital role in patient selection for surgery and in allocating stage-appropriate therapies to patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (PC). This study aims to: (1) understand the current diagnosis and staging practices for PC; and (2) explore the factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the use of a pancreatic protocol computed tomography (PPCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm diagnosis and/or accurately stage PC. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists from the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses. FINDINGS: In total, 21 clinicians (5 radiologists, 10 surgeons, 2 gastroenterologists, 4 medical and radiation oncologists) were interviewed over a four-month-period. Belief statements relevant to the TDF domains were generated. Across the 11 relevant domains, 20 themes and 30 specific beliefs were identified. All TDF domains, with the exception of social influences were identified by participants as relevant to protocol-based imaging using either a PPCT or MRI, with the domains of knowledge, skills and environmental context and resources being offered by most participants as being relevant in influencing their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: To maximise outcomes and personalise therapy it is imperative that diagnosis and staging investigations using the most appropriate imaging modalities are conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner. The results provide an understanding of specialists' opinion and behaviour in relation to a PPCT or MRI and should be used to inform the design of future interventions to improve compliance with this practice.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to examine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their attributes and application in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). METHOD: A systematic literature search was undertaken of articles published to June 2018 to identify PROMs applied in primary studies in PC. Characteristics of the included studies and PROMs were described with identified scales grouped into five domains. The psychometric properties of the identified PROMs were further assessed for reliability and validity among patients with PC. RESULTS: From 1688 studies screened, 170 were included. Almost half (48%) were conducted in patients with unresectable PC; the majority of these (68%) were evaluated in randomized controlled trials. Median questionnaire completion rates fell below 10% of the original cohort within 12 months in patients with unresectable PC compared to 75% in patients with resectable PC. Seventy PROMs were identified, 32 measuring unidimensional parameters (e.g. pain) and 35 measuring multidimensional (e.g. quality of life) constructs. Only five (7%) PROMs were disease-specific and 13 (19%) were validated in patients with PC. Fifty scales were grouped into 19 physical, 9 psychological, 6 psychiatric, 9 social and 7 other domains. CONCLUSION: Three multidimensional PROMs, the: (i) FACT-HEP in unresectable PC; (ii) QLQ-PAN26 (in conjunction with its core QLQ-C30 PROM) in resectable PC; and (iii) MDASI-GI are recommended as instruments to capture quality of life in patients with PC. Summarised scales and psychometric evaluation provide a framework to choose PROMs for scales not captured by the recommended PROMs.

The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR): a clinical quality registry to monitor and improve care in upper gastrointestinal cancers.

PURPOSE: The Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry (UGICR) was developed to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: It supports four cancer modules: pancreatic, oesophagogastric, biliary and primary liver cancer. The pancreatic cancer (PC) module was the first module to be implemented, with others being established in a staged approach. Individuals are recruited to the registry if they are aged 18 years or older, have received care for their cancer at a participating public/private hospital or private clinic in Australia and do not opt out of participation. FINDINGS TO DATE: The UGICR is governed by a multidisciplinary steering committee that provides clinical governance and oversees clinical working parties. The role of the working parties is to develop quality indicators based on best practice for each registry module, develop the minimum datasets and provide guidance in analysing and reporting of results. Data are captured from existing data sources (population-based cancer incidence registries, pathology databases and hospital-coded data) and manually from clinical records. Data collectors directly enter information into a secure web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data collection platform. The PC module began with a pilot phase, and subsequently, we used a formal modified Delphi consensus process to establish a core set of quality indicators for PC. The second module developed was the oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) module. Results of the 1 year pilot phases for PC and OGC modules are included in this cohort profile. FUTURE PLANS: The UGICR will provide regular reports of risk-adjusted, benchmarked performance on a range of quality indicators that will highlight variations in care and clinical outcomes at a health service level. The registry has also been developed with the view to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which will further add to our understanding of the care of patients with these cancers.

Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Best practise care optimises survival and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), but there is evidence of variability in management and suboptimal care for some patients. Monitoring practise is necessary to underpin improvement initiatives. We aimed to develop a core set of quality indicators that measure quality of care across the disease trajectory. METHODS: A modified, three-round Delphi survey was performed among experts with wide experience in PC care across three states in Australia. A total of 107 potential quality indicators were identified from the literature and divided into five areas: diagnosis and staging, surgery, other treatment, patient management and outcomes. A further six indicators were added by the panel, increasing potential quality indicators to 113. Rated on a scale of 1-9, indicators with high median importance and feasibility (score 7-9) and low disagreement (<1) were considered in the candidate set. RESULTS: From 113 potential quality indicators, 34 indicators met the inclusion criteria and 27 (7 diagnosis and staging, 5 surgical, 4 other treatment, 5 patient management, 6 outcome) were included in the final set. CONCLUSIONS: The developed indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research in PC care.