2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures PRO-CTCAE and CAT EORTC QLQ-C30 in Major Abdominal Cancer Surgery (PATRONUS): A Student-Initiated German Medical Audit (SIGMA) Study

      CHIR-Net SIGMA Study Group* 1 , , MSc , 2

      Annals of Surgical Oncology

      Springer International Publishing

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The patient-reported outcomes (PRO) version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) and the computerized adaptive testing (CAT) version of the EORTC quality-of-life questionnaire QLQ-C30 have been proposed as new PRO measures in oncology; however, their implementation in patients undergoing cancer surgery has not yet been evaluated.

          Methods

          Patients undergoing elective abdominal cancer surgery were enrolled in a prospective multicenter study, and postoperative complications were recorded according to the Dindo–Clavien classification. Patients reported PRO data using the CAT EORTC QLQ-C30 and the PRO-CTCAE to measure 12 core cancer symptoms. Patients were followed-up for 6 months postoperatively. The study was carried out by medical students of the CHIR- Net SIGMA study network.

          Results

          Data of 303 patients were obtained and analyzed across 15 sites. PRO-CTCAE symptoms ‘poor appetite’, ‘fatigue’, ‘exhaustion’ and ‘sleeping problems’ increased after surgery and climaxed 10–30 days postoperatively. At 3–6 months postoperatively, no PRO-CTCAE symptom differed significantly to baseline. Patients reported higher ‘social functioning’ ( p = 0.021) and overall quality-of-life scores ( p < 0.05) 6 months after cancer surgery compared with the baseline level. There was a lack of correlation between postoperative complications or death and any of the PRO items evaluated. Feasibility endpoints for student-led research were met.

          Conclusion

          The two novel PRO questionnaires were successfully applied in surgical oncology. Postoperative complications do not affect health-reported quality-of-life or common cancer symptoms following major cancer surgery. The feasibility of student-led multicenter clinical research was demonstrated, but might be enhanced by improved student training.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-09646-z.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.

              The lack of consensus on how to define and grade adverse postoperative events has greatly hampered the evaluation of surgical procedures. A new classification of complications, initiated in 1992, was updated 5 years ago. It is based on the type of therapy needed to correct the complication. The principle of the classification was to be simple, reproducible, flexible, and applicable irrespective of the cultural background. The aim of the current study was to critically evaluate this classification from the perspective of its use in the literature, by assessing interobserver variability in grading complex complication scenarios and to correlate the classification grades with patients', nurses', and doctors' perception. Reports from the literature using the classification system were systematically analyzed. Next, 11 scenarios illustrating difficult cases were prepared to develop a consensus on how to rank the various complications. Third, 7 centers from different continents, having routinely used the classification, independently assessed the 11 scenarios. An agreement analysis was performed to test the accuracy and reliability of the classification. Finally, the perception of the severity was tested in patients, nurses, and physicians by presenting 30 scenarios, each illustrating a specific grade of complication. We noted a dramatic increase in the use of the classification in many fields of surgery. About half of the studies used the contracted form, whereas the rest used the full range of grading. Two-thirds of the publications avoided subjective terms such as minor or major complications. The study of 11 difficult cases among various centers revealed a high degree of agreement in identifying and ranking complications (89% agreement), and enabled a better definition of unclear situations. Each grade of complications significantly correlated with the perception by patients, nurses, and physicians (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis test). This 5-year evaluation provides strong evidence that the classification is valid and applicable worldwide in many fields of surgery. No modification in the general principle of classification is warranted in view of the use in ongoing publications and trials. Subjective, inaccurate, or confusing terms such as "minor or major" should be removed from the surgical literature.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                team@sigma-studies.org
                Mihaljevic@uni-heidelberg.de
                Journal
                Ann Surg Oncol
                Ann Surg Oncol
                Annals of Surgical Oncology
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1068-9265
                1534-4681
                8 March 2021
                8 March 2021
                2021
                : 28
                : 6
                : 3075-3089
                Affiliations
                [1 ]CHIR-Net SIGMA Coordination Centre, Heidelberg, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.5253.1, ISNI 0000 0001 0328 4908, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, , Heidelberg University Hospital, ; Heidelberg, Germany
                Article
                9646
                10.1245/s10434-021-09646-z
                8119276
                33683524
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                Funding
                Funded by: Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts; Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg; Fachschaft Medizin Heidelberg,
                Award ID: Qualitätssicherungsmittel Lehre "SIGMA Project"
                Funded by: Projekt DEAL
                Categories
                Global Health Services Research
                Custom metadata
                © Society of Surgical Oncology 2021

                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article