Top 10 research priorities in colorectal cancer: results from the Colorectal Cancer Priority-Setting Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC. METHODS: The CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list. RESULTS: In the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics. CONCLUSION: All relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.

[Methodological Standard for the Development of Quality Indicators within Clinical Practice Guidelines - Results of a structured consensus process]. / Methodischer Standard für die Entwicklung von Qualitätsindikatoren im Rahmen von S3-Leitlinien ­ Ergebnisse einer strukturierten Konsensfindung.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations of evidence- and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a valuable source of quality indicators (QIs). Nevertheless, a standardized methodological procedure for developing QIs in the context of CPGs does not yet exist in Germany for all CPGs. For this reason, a methodological standard for the guideline-based development of QIs (QI Standard) was developed based on a structured consensus process involving multiple key stakeholders. METHODS: The proposed content of the QI Standard was derived from evidence, drawing upon results of reviews and qualitative studies, and considered German manuals for guideline-based QI development of two guideline programs. A multi-perspective consensus panel, broadly representing key stakeholders from the German healthcare system with expertise in CPGs and/or quality management, was nominated to vote on recommendations for guideline-based development of QIs. The iterative, structured consensus process included a two-stage online survey based on the Delphi method ("preliminary voting") and a moderated final stakeholder conference where all those recommendations were definitely included in the QI Standard that received approval of more than 75 % (consensus criterion) of the consensus panel. RESULTS: Based on the agreed QI Standard, the QI development process starts with a criteria-based selection of "potential" QIs which - in case of adoption - are published in CPGs as "preliminary" QIs and can achieve the status "final" after successful testing. The QI Standard is composed of a total of 30 recommendations, which are allocated to six areas: A) preparatory work steps for the guideline-based recommendation of QIs, B) QI development group and cooperation with the CPG group, C) development of potential QIs, D) critical appraisal of potential QIs, E) formal adoption and publication as well as F) piloting/testing of preliminary QIs and conversion into final QIs. DISCUSSION: Before the QI Standard can be recommended for implementation in future CPGs, it should have been successfully tested in selected German CPG projects. In addition to methodological requirements for the QI development, it must be ensured that guideline groups have adequate resources for the implementation of the QI Standard. CONCLUSION: By using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in routine practice: a European perspective.

GOALS OF WORK: The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and its effect on patients' ability to carry out daily life activities following moderately to highly emetogenic, first-cycle chemotherapy in routine practice in cancer centers of four different European countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional, nonrandomized, self-assessment study in 249 patients enrolled from cancer centers in Spain, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. The study population consisted of 78% women, with a mean age of 54. Breast, lung, and ovarian cancers made up 75% of all cancers in the study. Patients received a mean of 2.0 chemotherapy agents and 2.5 antiemetic drugs. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 450 emetic episodes experienced by 243 patients was recorded over 5 days following chemotherapy, with an average of 1.8 episodes per patient (range: 0-28). A higher percentage of patients (38%) suffered from delayed compared to acute emesis (13%). Between 42% and 52% of all patients suffered from nausea (visual analogue scale > or = 5 mm) on any one day, peaking at day 3. Using the Functional Living Index for Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire, 75% of patients with nausea and 50% with vomiting reported a negative impact of these conditions on performance of daily living. CONCLUSIONS: CINV remains a significant problem in routine practice, particularly in the delayed phase posttreatment. Overall, CINV had a negative impact on patients' daily life.