Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Measuring Quality of Life in Clinical Obesity Care.

PURPOSE: The focus of measuring success in obesity treatment is shifting from weight loss to patients' health and quality of life. The objective of this study was to select a core set of patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures to be used in clinical obesity care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Standardizing Quality of Life in Obesity Treatment III, face-to-face hybrid consensus meeting, including people living with obesity as well as healthcare providers, was held in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 2022. It was preceded by two prior multinational consensus meetings and a systematic review. RESULTS: The meeting was attended by 27 participants, representing twelve countries from five continents. The participants included healthcare providers, such as surgeons, endocrinologists, dietitians, psychologists, researchers, and people living with obesity, most of whom were involved in patient representative networks. Three patient-reported outcome measures (patient-reported outcomes) were selected: the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (self-esteem) measure, the BODY-Q (physical function, physical symptoms, psychological function, social function, eating behavior, and body image), and the Quality of Life for Obesity Surgery questionnaire (excess skin). No patient-reported outcome measure was selected for stigma. CONCLUSION: A core set of patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures for measuring quality of life in clinical obesity care is established incorporating patients' and experts' opinions. This set should be used as a minimum for measuring quality of life in routine clinical practice. It is essential that individual patient-reported outcome measure scores are shared with people living with obesity in order to enhance patient engagement and shared decision-making.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is unreliable in predicting melanoma mortality for both younger and older patients.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma disease patterns vary with patient age. AIM: To evaluate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in managing melanoma at differing patient ages. METHODS: Online prediction tools were applied to compare SLNB positivity (SLNB+) and survival risk at patient ages 20-80. Tübingen melanoma data were used to determine variations in the hazard ratio of SLNB+ for mortality at different patient ages. RESULTS: Regardless of tumour thickness, predicted SLNB+ rates were markedly higher than mortality rates for 20-year-old patients. For 80-year-old patients, it is the opposite. DISCUSSION: If 1000 20-year-olds with a 0.4 mm thickness non-ulcerated melanoma underwent SLNB, 100 would likely be positive. If all 100 were to be offered adjuvant drug therapy (ADT), fewer than three more melanoma deaths in those 1000 patients would be avoided. In total, 97 patients would have received medication they may never have needed. If 1000 80-year-olds with a 3 mm thickness non-ulcerated melanoma underwent SLNB, only 40 would likely be positive. In total, 274 patients would be predicted to die of melanoma, 245 being SLNB negative and 29 SLNB+. ADT linked to SLNB+ could deny treatment to 89% of these high-risk patients. LIMITATIONS: The authors relied on published risk data. CONCLUSION: SLNB has poor specificity at predicting mortality in young melanoma patients and poor sensitivity in older patients. SLNB is not indicated in managing cutaneous melanoma for patients under 40 or over 60 years of age. Many such patients could be managed with wide local excision alone in their clinician's office-based practice. For all cutaneous melanoma patients at all ages, linking ADT to BAUSSS biomarker, (an algorithm of Breslow thickness, age, ulceration, subtype, sex and Site) rather than SLNB+ is likely more appropriate. BAUSSS provides a more accurate melanoma-specific mortality risk assessment for patients without burdening them with added surgery, hospitalization, costs or morbidity risk.