ABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: Global health systems are shifting toward value-based care in an effort to drive better outcomes in the setting of rising health care costs. This shift requires a common definition of value, starting with the outcomes that matter most to patients. OBJECTIVE: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets of outcomes by medical condition. In this article, we report the efforts of ICHOM's working group in colorectal cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The working group was composed of multidisciplinary oncology specialists in medicine, surgery, radiation therapy, palliative care, nursing, and pathology, along with patient representatives. Through a modified Delphi process during 8 months (July 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016), ICHOM led the working group to a consensus on a final recommended standard set. The process was supported by a systematic PubMed literature review (1042 randomized clinical trials and guidelines from June 3, 2005, to June 3, 2015), a patient focus group (11 patients with early and metastatic colorectal cancer convened during a teleconference in August 2015), and a patient validation survey (among 276 patients with and survivors of colorectal cancer between October 15, 2015, and November 4, 2015). FINDINGS: After consolidating findings of the literature review and focus group meeting, a list of 40 outcomes was presented to the WG and underwent voting. The final recommendation includes outcomes in the following categories: survival and disease control, disutility of care, degree of health, and quality of death. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline to facilitate comparison of results across treatments and health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures to inform value-based health care in colorectal cancer was developed. Pilot efforts are under way to measure the standard set among members of the working group.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Delphi Technique , Focus Groups , Humans , International Cooperation , Quality of Health Care , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO), offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's oncologists following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the utility of KRAS gene mutation testing in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody (MoAb) therapy with cetuximab or panitumumab (see Note). CLINICAL CONTEXT: Recent results from phase II and III clinical trials demonstrate that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer benefit from therapy with monoclonal antibodies directed against the EGFR, when used either as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy. Retrospective subset analyses of the data from these trials strongly suggest that patients who have KRAS mutations detected in codon 12 or 13 do not benefit from this therapy. RECENT DATA: Five randomized controlled trials of cetuximab or panitumumab have evaluated outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma in relation to KRAS mutational status as no mutation detected (wild type) or abnormal (mutated). Another five single-arm studies have retrospectively evaluated tumor response according to KRAS status. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Based on systematic reviews of the relevant literature, all patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who are candidates for anti-EGFR antibody therapy should have their tumor tested for KRAS mutations in a CLIA-accredited laboratory. If KRAS mutation in codon 12 or 13 is detected, then patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma should not receive anti-EGFR antibody therapy as part of their treatment. NOTE: ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written, and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision-making and identify questions and settings for further research. Due to the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients, and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical practice and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical trials. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.