Improving sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.

Objective: To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review. Results: Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users. Conclusion: We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly. Innovation: This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.

Efficacy-effectiveness analysis on survival in a population-based real-world study of BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib-cetuximab has been approved for pretreated BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients based on efficacy demonstrated in the randomized phase III BEACON trial. The aim of this real-world effectiveness study is to improve knowledge on the generalizability of trial results. METHODS: This population-based real-world study includes all mCRC patients in the Netherlands treated with encorafenib-cetuximab since approval. Individual patient data and pathology reports were collected. Overall survival (OS) was compared to BEACON and subgroup analyses were conducted for patients who would have been eligible and ineligible for BEACON. RESULTS: 166 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 14.5 months. Median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI:6.0-8.3) and differed from BEACON (9.3 months; 95% CI:8.0-11.3, p-value 0.002). Thirty-six percent of real-world patients would have been ineligible for the BEACON trial. Trial ineligible subgroups with symptomatic brain metastases and WHO performance status ≥2 had the poorest median OS of 5.0 months (95% CI:4.0-NR) and 3.9 months (95% CI:2.4-NR). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort of mCRC patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab showed a clinically relevant efficacy-effectiveness gap for OS. The chance of survival benefit from encorafenib-cetuximab in patients with brain metastases and/or WHO performance status ≥2 is negligible as neither efficacy nor effectiveness has been demonstrated.

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT: Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Trends in Use and Perceptions About Triplet Chemotherapy Plus Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Triplet chemotherapy with fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (FOLFOXIRI-B) is an effective first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the degree of implementation of FOLFOXIRI-B in daily practice is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the current adoption rate of FOLFOXIRI-B in patients with mCRC and investigate the perspectives of medical oncologists toward this treatment option. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 1-week, multicenter, cross-sectional study in the Netherlands used a flash mob design, which facilitates ultrafast data generation (flash) through the engagement of numerous researchers (mob). During the study week (March 1-5, 2021), patient data were retrieved from electronic health records of 47 hospitals on patients with mCRC who were referred to a medical oncologist between November 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. Interviews were simultaneously conducted with 101 medical oncologists from 52 hospitals who regularly treat patients with mCRC. Exposure: First-line systemic treatment as determined by the treating physician. Main Outcomes and Measures: The FOLFOXIRI-B prescription rate was the main outcome. Current practice was compared with prescription rates in 2015 to 2018. Eligibility for treatment with FOLFOXIRI-B was estimated. An exploratory outcome was medical oncologists' reported perspectives on FOLFOXIRI-B. Results: A total of 5948 patients in the Netherlands (median age [interquartile range], 66 [57-73] years; 3503 [59%] male; and 3712 [62%] with left-sided or rectal tumor) were treated with first-line systemic therapy for synchronous mCRC. A total of 282 patients with mCRC underwent systemic therapy during the study period (2021). Of these 282 patients, 199 (71%) were treated with intensive first-line therapy other than FOLFOXIRI-B, of whom 184 (65%) were treated with oxaliplatin doublets with or without bevacizumab; 14 (5%) with irinotecan doublets with or without bevacizumab, panitumumab, or cetuximab; and 1 (0.4%) with irinotecan with bevacizumab. Fifty-four patients (19%) were treated with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy with or without bevacizumab, 1 patient (0.4%) with panitumumab monotherapy, and 3 (1%) with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In total, 25 patients (9%; 95% CI, 6%-12%) were treated with first-line FOLFOXIRI-B compared with 142 (2%; 95% CI, 2%-3%) in 2015 to 2018. During the study period, 21 of 157 eligible patients (13.4%) in the Netherlands were treated with FOLFOXIRI-B. A total of 87 medical oncologists (86%) reported discussing FOLFOXIRI-B as a treatment option with eligible patients. A total of 47 of 85 (55%) generally communicated a preference for a chemotherapy doublet to patients. These oncologists reported a significantly lower awareness of guidelines and trial results. Toxic effects were the most reported reason to prefer an alternative regimen. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that FOLFOXIRI-B prescription rates have marginally increased in the last 5 years. Considering that most medical oncologists discuss this treatment option, the prescription rate found in this study was below expectations. Awareness of guidelines and trial data seems to contribute to the discussion of available treatment options by medical oncologists, and the findings of this study suggest a need for repeated and continuing medical education.

Translating Sepsis-3 Criteria in Children: Prognostic Accuracy of Age-Adjusted Quick SOFA Score in Children Visiting the Emergency Department With Suspected Bacterial Infection.

Background: Recent attempts to translate Sepsis-3 criteria to children have been restricted to PICU patients and did not target children in emergency departments (ED). We assessed the prognostic accuracy of the age-adjusted quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (qSOFA) and compared the performance to SIRS and the quick Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 score (qPELOD-2). We studied whether the addition of lactate (qSOFA-L) would increase prognostic accuracy. Methods: Non-academic, single-center, retrospective study in children visiting the ED and admitted with suspected bacterial infection between March 2013 and January 2018. We defined suspected bacterial infection as initiation of antibiotic therapy within 24 h after ED entry. Age-adjusted qSOFA, SIRS, qPELOD-2, and qSOFA-L scores were compared by area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) analysis. Primary outcome measure was PICU transfer and/or mortality and secondary outcome was prolonged hospital length of stay. Results: We included 864 ED visits [474 (55%) male; median age 2.5 years; IQR 9 months-6 years], of which 18 were transferred to a PICU and 6 ended in death [composite outcome PICU transfer and/or mortality; 23 admissions (2.7%)]. 179 (22.2%) admissions resulted in prolonged hospital length of stay. PICU transfer and/or death was present in 22.5% of visits with qSOFA≥2 (n = 40) compared to 2.0% of visits with qSOFA<2 (n = 444) (p < 0.01). qSOFA tends to be the best predictor of PICU transfer and/or mortality (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.86) compared to SIRS [0.64 (95% CI, 0.53-0.74), p = 0.23] and qPELOD-2 [0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.76), p = 0.03)]. Prolonged hospital length of stay was poorly predicted by qSOFA (AUROC 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.59), SIRS (0.49, 95% CI 0.44-0.54), and qPELOD-2 (0.51, 95%CI 0.45-0.57). qSOFA-L resulted in an AUROC of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.50-0.84) for PICU transfer and/or mortality and an AUROC of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.46-0.67) for prolonged hospital length of stay. Conclusion: The currently proposed bedside risk-stratification tool of Sepsis-3 criteria, qSOFA, shows moderate prognostic accuracy for PICU transfer and/or mortality in children visiting the ED with suspected bacterial infection. The addition of lactate did not improve prognostic accuracy. Future prospective studies in larger ED populations are needed to further determine the utility of the qSOFA score.