Introduction: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. While there has been rapid evolution in the treatment paradigm of HCC across the past decade, the extent to which these newly approved therapies are utilized in clinical practice in the real world is, however, unknown. The INSIGHT study was an investigator-initiated, multi-site longitudinal cohort study conducted to reflect real-world epidemiology and clinical practice in Asia-Pacific in the immediate 7-year period after the conclusion of the BRIDGE study. Methods: Data were collected both retrospectively (planned 30% of the total cohort size) and prospectively (planned 70%) from January 2013 to December 2019 from eligible patients newly diagnosed with HCC from 33 participating sites across 9 Asia-Pacific countries. Results: A total of 2,533 newly diagnosed HCC patients (1,052 in retrospective cohort and 1,481 in prospective cohort) were enrolled. The most common risk factor was hepatitis B in all countries except Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, where the prevalence of hepatitis C and diabetes were more common. The top three comorbidities reported in the INSIGHT study include cirrhosis, hypertension, and diabetes. We observe high heterogeneity in the first-line treatment recorded across countries and across disease stages, which significantly affects survival outcomes. Stratification by factors such as etiologies, tumor characteristics, the presence of extrahepatic metastases or macrovascular invasion, and the use of subsequent lines of treatment were performed. Conclusion: The INSIGHT study describes a wide spectrum of clinical management practices in HCC, where patient demographics, differential costs, and patient access to therapies may lead to wide geographical variations through the patient's treatment cycle, from diagnosis to clinical outcome. The high heterogeneity in patient outcomes demonstrates the need for more robust and clinical management strategies to be designed and adopted to bring about better patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines should be based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and generally include a rating of the quality of evidence and assign a strength to recommendations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance warns against making strong recommendations when the certainty of the evidence is low or very low, but has identified five paradigmatic situations (e.g. life-threatening situations) where this may be justified. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the strength of recommendations and certainty of the evidence in Irish National Clinical Guidelines using the GRADE approach. METHODS: All National Clinical Guidelines from the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) website using the GRADE approach (fully or partially) were included. All recommendations and their corresponding certainty of the evidence, strength of recommendations and justifications were extracted. Authors classified instances of strong recommendations with low certainty evidence (referred to as discordant recommendations) into one of the five paradigmatic situations. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: From the 29 NCEC Clinical Guidelines available at the time of analysis, we identified 8 guidelines using GRADE with a total of 240 recommendations; 38 recommendations did not use the GRADE approach and were excluded. Half of the included guidelines focused on emergency situations. In the final dataset of 202 recommendations, 151 (74.7%) were classified as strong and 51 (25.3%) as conditional. Of the 151 strong recommendations, 55 (36.4%) were supported by high or moderate certainty evidence and 96 (63.6%) by low or very low certainty evidence and were considered discordant. Of these 96 discordant recommendations, 55 (73.7%) were consistent with one of the five paradigmatic situations. However, none were specifically described as such within the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of discordant recommendations identified in this analysis was higher than some previous international studies (range of all strong recommendations being discordant 30-50%), but similar to other guidelines focused on emergency situations. The majority of discordant recommendations could be mapped to one of the five situations, but no National Clinical Guideline explicitly referenced this. Guideline developers require further guidance to enable greater transparency in the reporting of the reasons for discordant recommendations.
Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies
Introduction: Currently, no group specifically supports and coordinates primary care focused cancer research in Ireland. The aim of this project is to establish an inclusive stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland, to coordinate research efforts and build capacity in researchers and institutions. Methods: We will convene a stakeholder group, recruiting individuals with personal and professional experience of cancer care in a community setting. "Core stakeholders"-patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers-will attend regularly. Additional "specialist stakeholders", such as representatives of secondary care, private healthcare, health insurance, industry, cancer charities, and health research funders, will participate on an ad hoc basis. An e-Delphi consensus process will be used to assess the stakeholders' views on: (1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice. Round 1 will be open-ended and will invite the independent suggestions of stakeholders; in Round 2 and 3, group members will vote on the inclusion of these suggestions in a position statement by the group, with consensus defined as ≥75% agreement. Discussion: The formation of a broad stakeholder group to support primary care focused cancer research will ensure research is relevant, patient centered, and more readily translated into practice. It is also hoped that the group will support capacity building and strategic planning in this important research space.
