Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study.

INTRODUCTION: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236979.

Unmet needs and recommendations to improve meningioma care through patient, partner, and health care provider input: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that lack of ongoing registration of patient-centered outcomes has resulted in existing care trajectories that have not been optimized for sequelae experienced by meningioma patients. This study aimed to evaluate the structure of current meningioma care and identify issues and potential high-impact improvement initiatives. METHODS: Using the grounded theory approach, a thematic framework was constructed based on the Dutch Comprehensive Cancer Organisation survey about issues in meningioma care trajectories. This framework was used during 3 semistructured interviews and 2 focus groups with patient-partner dyads (n = 16 participants), and 2 focus groups with health care providers (n = 11 participants) to assess issues in current meningioma care trajectories and possible solutions, including barriers to and facilitators for implementation. RESULTS: Identified issues (n = 18 issues) were categorized into 3 themes: availability and provision of information, care and support, and screening for (neurocognitive) rehabilitation. A lack of information about the intervention and possible outcomes or complications, lack of support after treatment focusing on bodily and psychological functions, and reintegration into society were considered most important. Sixteen solutions were suggested, such as appointment of case managers (solution for 11/18 issues, 61%), assessment and treatment by physiatrists (22%), and routine use of patient-reported outcome measures for patient monitoring (17%). Barriers for these solutions were lack of budget, capacity, technology infrastructure, and qualified personnel with knowledge about issues experienced by meningioma patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified issues in current multidisciplinary meningioma care that are considered unmet needs by patients, partners, and health care providers and could guide innovation of care.