RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Some therapeutic strategy questions in oncology could be answered with studies using observational data. Target trial emulation is the application of design principles from randomized controlled trials to the analysis of observational data, to reduce design-induced biases. Our objective was to determine which type of study physicians would preferably plan to answer a comparative effectiveness question lacking evidence in oncology. METHODS: We launched an online survey among physicians specialized in oncology. We constructed a vignette-based inquiry where vignettes described study scenarios which could be conducted to answer the predefined question. We designed six vignettes described by study design (randomized controlled trial or observational study with a trial emulation framework), main study characteristics, probability of the study succeeding and anticipated delay before results availability. Participants randomly assessed five pair-wise comparisons of the vignettes and were asked which study they would preferably plan by using a Likert scale. The main outcome was the evaluation of clinicians' preferences for each pairwise comparison. Mean and median preference scores were calculated. RESULTS: 213 participants, specialized in many tumor types, assessed at least one comparison with 82% reporting France as their country of affiliation. The interquartile range was -4 to 4 across pairwise comparisons. The median preference score was in disfavor of the monocentric randomized controlled trial for the five comparisons where it appeared. The median preference score was strongly in favor of the multicentric national emulated trial when compared to the monocentric emulated trial 4 [IQ 2.5-4]. The mean preference score was the highest for the large European observational study 1.14 (SD 3.33), while the mean preference score was the lowest for the monocentric randomized controlled trial -1.86 (SD 2.93). CONCLUSION: No study design was strongly preferred, but the monocentric randomized controlled trial was the least favored study in pair-wise comparisons. The planification of the new research is a compromise between scientific soundness, feasibility, cost, and time before obtaining results. We need to have the right answers to the right questions at the right time.
RESUMEN
Background: Bacterial peritonitis (BP) in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer has been poorly described, and its prevalence is unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate in patients with both GI cancer and ascites the prevalence of BP, associated features, mechanisms, prognosis, and the diagnostic performance of neutrophil count in ascites. Design: A retrospective, multicenter, observational study. Methods: All patients with GI cancer and ascites who underwent at least one paracentesis sample analyzed for bacteriology over a 1-year period were included. BP was defined by a positive ascites culture combined with clinical and/or biological signs compatible with infection. Secondary BP was defined as BP related to a direct intra-abdominal infectious source. Results: Five hundred fifty-seven ascites from 208 patients included were analyzed. Twenty-eight patients had at least one episode of BP and the annual prevalence rate of BP was 14%. Among the 28 patients with BP, 19 (65%) patients had proven secondary BP and 17 (59%) patients had multi-microbial BP, mainly due to Enterobacterales. A neutrophil count greater than 110/mm3 in ascites had negative and positive predictive values of 96% and 39%, respectively, for the diagnosis of BP. The median survival of patients with BP was 10 days (interquartile range 6-40) after the diagnosis. Conclusion: BP is not rare in patients with GI cancer and is associated with a poor short-term prognosis. When a patient with GI cancer is diagnosed with BP, a secondary cause should be sought. Further studies are needed to better define the best management of these patients.