Improving tumor budding reporting in colorectal cancer: a Delphi consensus study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haddad TS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8448718 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in colon cancer during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist, members of multidisciplinary teams and patients.Materials and methodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n = 18 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 7 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 9 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section and n = 29 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 63 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received a higher than good rating: a mean value of 4.6 and range 3.6-4.9 in the first round; a mean value of 5.0 and range 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was a questionable 0.61. In the first round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.6 (range 1-5) and 1111 (mean value 74.07, STD 4.85), respectively. In the second round, Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was an acceptable 0.70. In the second round, the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 1108 (mean value 79.14, STD 1.83), respectively. The overall mean score obtained by the experts in the second round was higher than the overall mean score of the first round, with a lower standard deviation value to underline greater agreement among the experts for the structured report reached in this round.ConclusionsA wide implementation of SR is of critical importance in order to offer referring physicians and patients optimum quality of service and to provide researchers with the best quality data in the context of big data exploitation of available clinical data. Implementation is a complex procedure, requiring mature technology to successfully address the multiple challenges of user-friendliness, organization and interoperability.
| S-EPMC8795004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe majority of severely ill and dying people in Germany can be administered primary palliative care (PPC) by general practitioners (GP). However, the current provision of PPC does not match the needs of the population. Although several public health strategies aim at strengthening the role of GPs in PPC provision, it remains challenging for GP teams to integrate PPC into their daily routines.AimA Delphi study with GPs was conducted to achieve consensus on specific measures for improving the integration of PPC into everyday GP practice.MethodsThe study is part of the junior research project "Primary Palliative Care in General Practice" (ALLPRAX). After having developed, tested and evaluated 26 practical measures for GP practices to improve their PPC, a Delphi consensus study among GPs took place. In 2020, 569 GPs were asked to rate the relevance and feasibility of the measures on a 4-point Likert scale via an anonymous online questionnaire. Consensus was defined as a sum percentage of 'strongly agree' and 'somewhat agree' responses ≥75% after two rounds. Between these rounds, measures that were not consented in the first round were adapted in light of respondents' free text comments and suggestions.ResultsThe response rate was 11.3% in round 1 (n = 64) and 53.1% in round 2 (n = 34). From the initial n = 26 measures, n = 20 measures achieved consensus and were included in the final intervention package. The consented measures pertained to four main topics: advance care planning with patients, consulting and informing patients and family caregivers, GP office organisation and continuing education. N = 6 measures did not achieve consensus, predominantly due to time and workload constraints.ConclusionThe consented measures provide valuable support to improve the provision of PPC by GPs. They can be used freely and flexibly, according to the needs of individual GP teams, and are thus suitable for implementation nationwide.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Registration N° DRKS00011821; 4 December 2017; https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ) and the German Register of Health Care Research (Registration N° VfD_ALLPRAX_16_003817; 30 March 2017).
| S-EPMC8762944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Structured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports for lymphoma patients during the staging phase to improve communication between radiologists, members of multidisciplinary teams, and patients. A panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), was established. A modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. The Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation. The final SR version was divided into four sections: (a) Patient Clinical Data, (b) Clinical Evaluation, (c) Imaging Protocol, and (d) Report, including n = 13 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n = 8 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n = 9 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n = 32 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 62 items were included in the final version of the SR. A dedicated section of significant images was added as part of the report. In the first Delphi round, all sections received more than a good rating (≥3). The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of score for structured report were 4.4 (range 1-5) and 1524 (mean value of 101.6 and standard deviation of 11.8). The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.89 in the first round. In the second Delphi round, all sections received more than an excellent rating (≥4). The overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for structured report were 4.9 (range 3-5) and 1694 (mean value of 112.9 and standard deviation of 4.0). The Cα correlation coefficient was 0.87 in this round. The highest overall means value, highest sum of scores of the panelists, and smallest standard deviation values of the evaluations in this round reflect the increase of the internal consistency and agreement among experts in the second round compared to first round. The accurate statement of imaging data given to referring physicians is critical for patient care; the information contained affects both the decision-making process and the subsequent treatment. The radiology report is the most important source of clinical imaging information. It conveys critical information about the patient's health and the radiologist's interpretation of medical findings. It also communicates information to the referring physicians and records this information for future clinical and research use. The present SR was generated based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise and uses standardized terminology and structures, in order to adhere to diagnostic/therapeutic recommendations and facilitate enrolment in clinical trials, to reduce any ambiguity that may arise from non-conventional language, and to enable better communication between radiologists and clinicians.
| S-EPMC8432477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a structured reporting (SR) template for whole-body CT examinations of polytrauma patients, based on the consensus of a panel of emergency radiology experts from the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology.MethodsA multi-round Delphi method was used to quantify inter-panelist agreement for all SR sections. Internal consistency for each section and quality analysis in terms of average inter-item correlation were evaluated by means of the Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient.ResultsThe final SR form included 118 items (6 in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, 4 in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, 9 in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and 99 in the "Report" section). The experts' overall mean score and sum of scores were 4.77 (range 1-5) and 257.56 (range 206-270) in the first Delphi round, and 4.96 (range 4-5) and 208.44 (range 200-210) in the second round, respectively. In the second Delphi round, the experts' overall mean score was higher than in the first round, and standard deviation was lower (3.11 in the second round vs 19.71 in the first round), reflecting a higher expert agreement in the second round. Moreover, Cα was higher in the second round than in the first round (0.97 vs 0.87).ConclusionsOur SR template for whole-body CT examinations of polytrauma patients is based on a strong agreement among panel experts in emergency radiology and could improve communication between radiologists and the trauma team.
| S-EPMC9938818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrehabilitation in colorectal surgery is evolving and may minimise postoperative morbidity and mortality. With many different healthcare professionals contributing to the prehabilitation literature, there is significant variation in reported primary endpoints that restricts comparison. In addition, there has been limited work on patient-related outcome measures suggesting that patients with colorectal cancer needs and issues are being overlooked. The Defining Standards in Colorectal Optimisation Study aims to achieve international consensus from all stakeholders on key standards to provide a framework for reporting future prehabilitation research.Methods and analysisA systematic review will identify key standards reported in trials of prehabilitation in colorectal surgery. Standards that are important to patients will be identified by a patient and public involvement (PPI) event. The longlist of standards generated from the systematic review and PPI event will be used to develop a three-round online Delphi process. This will engage all stakeholders (healthcare professionals and patients) both nationally and internationally. The results of the Delphi will be followed by a face-to-face interactive consensus meeting that will define the final standards for prehabilitation for elective colorectal surgery.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee has approved this protocol, which is registered as a study (200190120) with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative. Publication of the standards developed by all stakeholders will increase the potential for comparative research that advances understanding of the clinical application of prehabilitation.Prospero registration numberCRD42019120381.
| S-EPMC7993327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStructured reporting (SR) in radiology is becoming increasingly necessary and has been recognized recently by major scientific societies. This study aims to build structured CT-based reports in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms during the staging phase in order to improve communication between the radiologist and members of multidisciplinary teams.Materials and methodsA panel of expert radiologists, members of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology, was established. A Modified Delphi process was used to develop the SR and to assess a level of agreement for all report sections. Cronbach's alpha (Cα) correlation coefficient was used to assess internal consistency for each section and to measure quality analysis according to the average inter-item correlation.ResultsThe final SR version was built by including n=16 items in the "Patient Clinical Data" section, n=13 items in the "Clinical Evaluation" section, n=8 items in the "Imaging Protocol" section, and n=17 items in the "Report" section. Overall, 54 items were included in the final version of the SR. Both in the first and second round, all sections received more than a good rating: a mean value of 4.7 and range of 4.2-5.0 in the first round and a mean value 4.9 and range of 4.9-5 in the second round. In the first round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a poor 0.57: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.7 (range 1-5) and 728 (mean value 52.00 and standard deviation 2.83), respectively. In the second round, the Cα correlation coefficient was a good 0.82: the overall mean score of the experts and the sum of scores for the structured report were 4.9 (range 4-5) and 760 (mean value 54.29 and standard deviation 1.64), respectively.ConclusionsThe present SR, based on a multi-round consensus-building Delphi exercise following in-depth discussion between expert radiologists in gastro-enteric and oncological imaging, derived from a multidisciplinary agreement between a radiologist, medical oncologist and surgeon in order to obtain the most appropriate communication tool for referring physicians.
| S-EPMC8670531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Whole-body vibration (WBV) is a method utilizing vibrating platforms to expose individuals to mechanical vibration. In its various applications, it has been linked to improved muscular, skeletal, metabolic, or cognitive functioning, quality of life, and physiological parameters such as blood pressure. Most evidence concerning WBV is inconclusive and meta-analytical reviews may not readily produce insights since the research has a risk of misunderstandings of vibration parameters and incomplete reporting occurs. This study aims at laying an empirical foundation for reporting guidelines for human WBV studies to improve the quality of reporting and the currently limited comparability between studies. METHOD:The Delphi methodology is employed to exploit the integrated knowledge of WBV experts to distil the specific aspects of WBV methodology that should be included in such guidelines. Over three rounds of completing online questionnaires, the expert panel (round 1/2/3: 51/40/37 experts respectively from 17 countries with an average of 19.4 years of WBV research experience) rated candidate items. RESULTS:A 40-item list was established based on the ratings of the individual items from the expert panel with a large final consensus (94.6%). CONCLUSION:The final consensus indicates comprehensiveness and valuableness of the list. The results are in line with previous guidelines but expand these extensively. The present results may therefore serve as a foundation for updated guidelines for reporting human WBV studies in order to improve the quality of reporting of WBV studies, improve comparability of studies and facilitate the development of WBV study designs.
| S-EPMC7375612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:C4.4A is a glycolipid-anchored membrane protein expressed in several human malignancies. The aim of this study was to explore the association between C4.4A expression at the invasion front of colorectal cancer (CRC) and tumor budding, a putative hallmark of cell invasion of CRC. Advanced CRCs (T2-4, n = 126) had a budding count of 3.66 ± 5.66, which was significantly higher than that of T1 early CRCs (1.75 ± 2.78, n = 87). C4.4A-positive CRC specimens showed a larger budding cell number than C4.4A-negative CRC specimens in T1 CRCs, and especially advanced CRCs (9.45 ± 5.83 vs 1.60 ± 3.93). Furthermore, we found a correlation between the percentage of C4.4A-positive cases and budding count in advanced CRC. Multivariate analysis for patients' survival showed that C4.4A was superior to tumor budding as a prognostic factor. With siRNA treatment, C4.4A levels were associated with cell invasion, but not with proliferation, in HCT116 and DLD1 cell lines. An immunohistochemical study in a subset of CRCs showed no relationship between C4.4A and Ki-67 proliferation marker. In vitro assays using HCT116 indicated that C4.4A levels correlated well with epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) with regard to cell morphology and alterations of EMT markers including E-cadherin, vimentin, and partially N-cadherin. We also found that C4.4A expression was significantly associated with loss of E-cadherin and gain of β-catenin in clinical CRC tissue samples. These findings suggest that a tight association between C4.4A and tumor budding may, in part, be due to C4.4A promoting EMT at the invasive front of CRC.
| S-EPMC7685091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:To provide optimal care for patients with cancer, timely and efficient communication between healthcare providers is essential. In this study, we aimed to achieve consensus regarding the desired content of communication between general practitioners (GPs) and oncology specialists before and during the initial treatment of cancer. METHODS:In a two-round Delphi procedure, three expert panels reviewed items recommended for inclusion on referral and specialist letters. RESULTS:The three panels comprised 39 GPs (42%), 42 oncology specialists (41%) (i.e. oncologists, radiotherapists, urologists and surgeons) and 18 patients or patient representatives (69%). Final agreement was by consensus, with 12 and 35 items included in the GP referral and the specialist letters, respectively. The key requirements of GP referral letters were that they should be limited to medical facts, a short summary of symptoms and abnormal findings, and the reason for referral. There was a similar requirement for letters from specialists to include these same medical facts, but detailed information was also required about the diagnosis, treatment options and chosen treatment. After two rounds, the overall content validity index (CVI) for both letters was 71%, indicating that a third round was not necessary. DISCUSSION:This is the first study to differentiate between essential and redundant information in GP referral and specialist letters, and the findings could be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care.
| S-EPMC6803614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery.Methods and findingsThe scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival).ConclusionThis study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.
| S-EPMC4978448 | biostudies-literature