Search

Background: The EORTC QLQ-STO22 (QLQ-STO22) is a firmly established and validated measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for people with gastric cancer (GC), developed over two decades ago. Since then there have been dramatic changes in treatment options for GC. Also, East Asian patients were not involved in the development of QLQ-STO22, where GC is most prevalent and the QLQ-STO22 is widely used. A review with appropriate updating of the measure was planned. This study aims to capture HRQoL issues associated with new treatments and the perspectives of patients and health care professionals (HCPs) from different cultural backgrounds, including East Asia., Methods: A systematic literature review and open-ended interviews were preformed to identify potential new HRQoL issues relating to GC. This was followed by structured interviews where HCPs and patients reviewed the QLQ-STO22 alongside new issues regarding relevance, importance, and acceptability., Results: The review of 267 publications and interviews with 104 patients and 18 HCPs (48 and 9 from East Asia, respectively) generated a list of 58 new issues. Three of these relating to eating small amounts, flatulence, and neuropathy were recommended for inclusion in an updated version of the QLQ-STO22 and covered by five additional questions., Conclusions: This study supports the content validity of the QLQ-STO22, suggesting its continued relevance to patients with GC, including those from East Asia. The updated version with additional questions and linguistic changes will enhance its specificity, but further testing is required., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The treatment landscape for gastric cancer (GC) is constantly evolving with therapies affecting all aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which need careful monitoring. While there are HRQoL measures designed specifically to capture issues relevant to patients with GC, these might be outdated and only relevant to patients in westernised cultures. This review identifies the patient-reported measures used to assess HRQoL of patients with GC and compares the HRQoL measures used across cultures including East Asia, where GC is more prevalent. We conducted a systematic review of publications between January 2001 and January 2021. A total of 267 papers were identified; the majority (66%) of studies involved patients from East Asian countries. Out of the 24 HRQoL questionnaires captured, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Cancer measure (QLQ-C30) was the most widely used (60% of all studies and 62% of those involving patients from East Asian countries), followed by its gastric cancer-specific module (QLQ-STO22, 34% of all studies and 41% from East Asia). Eight questionnaires were developed within East Asian countries and, of the 20 studies including bespoke questions, 16 were from East Asia. There were six qualitative studies. HRQoL issues captured include diarrhoea, constipation, reflux, abdominal pain and abdominal fulness or bloating, difficulty swallowing, restricted eating, and weight loss. Psychosocial issues related to these problems were also assessed. Issues relating to the compatibility of some of the westernised measures within East Asian cultures were highlighted., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: International stakeholder participation is important in the development of core outcome sets (COS). Stakeholders from varying regions may value health outcomes differently. Here, we explore how region, health income and participant characteristics influence prioritisation of outcomes during development of a COS for gastric cancer surgery trials (the GASTROS study)., Methods: 952 participants from 55 countries participating in a Delphi survey during COS development were eligible for inclusion. Recruits were grouped according to region (East or West), country income classification (high and low-to-middle income) and other characteristics (e.g. patients; age, sex, time since surgery, mode of treatment, surgical approach and healthcare professionals; clinical experience). Groups were compared with respect to how they categorised 56 outcomes identified as potentially important to include in the final COS ('consensus in', 'consensus out', 'no consensus'). Outcomes categorised as 'consensus in' or 'consensus out' by all 3 stakeholder groups would be automatically included in or excluded from the COS respectively., Results: In total, 13 outcomes were categorised 'consensus in' (disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence of cancer, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, all-cause complications, intraoperative complications, anaesthetic complications, anastomotic complications, multiple organ failure, and bleeding), 13 'consensus out' and 31 'no consensus'. There was little variation in prioritisation of outcomes by stakeholders from Eastern or Western countries and high or low-to-middle income countries. There was little variation in outcome prioritisation within either health professional or patient groups., Conclusion: Our study suggests that there is little variation in opinion within stakeholder groups when participant region and other characteristics are considered. This finding may help COS developers when designing their Delphi surveys and recruitment strategies. Further work across other clinical fields is needed before broad recommendations can be made., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) should be relevant to key stakeholders and widely applicable and usable. Ideally, they are developed for international use to allow optimal data synthesis from trials. Electronic Delphi surveys are commonly used to facilitate global participation; however, this has limitations. It is common for these surveys to be conducted in a single language potentially excluding those not fluent in that tongue. The aim of this study is to summarise current approaches for optimising international participation in Delphi studies and make recommendations for future practice., Methods: A comprehensive literature review of current approaches to translating Delphi surveys for COS development was undertaken. A standardised methodology adapted from international guidance derived from 12 major sets of translation guidelines in the field of outcome reporting was developed. As a case study, this was applied to a COS project for surgical trials in gastric cancer to translate a Delphi survey into 7 target languages from regions active in gastric cancer research., Results: Three hundred thirty-two abstracts were screened and four studies addressing COS development in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, vascular malformations and polypharmacy were eligible for inclusion. There was wide variation in methodological approaches to translation, including the number of forward translations, the inclusion of back translation, the employment of cognitive debriefing and how discrepancies and disagreements were handled. Important considerations were identified during the development of the gastric cancer survey including establishing translation groups, timelines, understanding financial implications, strategies to maximise recruitment and regulatory approvals. The methodological approach to translating the Delphi surveys was easily reproducible by local collaborators and resulted in an additional 637 participants to the 315 recruited to complete the source language survey. Ninety-nine per cent of patients and 97% of healthcare professionals from non-English-speaking regions used translated surveys., Conclusion: Consideration of the issues described will improve planning by other COS developers and can be used to widen international participation from both patients and healthcare professionals.

Objective: The reporting of outcomes in surgical trials for gastric cancer is inconsistent. The GASTROS study ( GA stric Cancer S urgery TR ials R eported O utcome S tandardisation) aims to address this by developing a core outcome set (COS) for use in all future trials within this field. A COS should reflect the views of all stakeholders, including patients. We undertook a series of interviews to identify outcomes important to patients which would be considered for inclusion in a COS., Setting: All interviews took place within the UK. Interviews were carried out face-to-face at hospitals and cancer support centres or via the telephone., Participants: Twenty participants at varying stages of recovery following surgery for gastric cancer with curative intent., Design: Qualitative design using semistructured interviews, supported by an interview guide which was iteratively modified; thematic analysis was used to explore patient priorities., Results: Six themes enveloping 38 outcomes were identified; surviving and controlling cancer, technical aspects of surgery, adverse events from surgery, recovering from surgery, long-term problems following surgery and long-term life impact of surgery. The 'most important' patient priority was to be 'cured of cancer'., Conclusion: Surgical trials for gastric cancer should consider broader priorities of patients when choosing which outcomes to report. This study highlighted the importance of longer-term outcomes such as cancer survival. Outcomes identified in this study will be used to inform an international Delphi survey to develop a COS in this field., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The aim of the present study was to assess the prognosis of patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) adenocarcinoma extending beyond the muscularis propria layer (≥ypT3) and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), post neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Methods: 177 patients were retrospectively studied. The majority (94.9%) received ECX (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine), and all had clear proximal/distal resection margins. CRM was defined as positive (CRM+) when it was directly infiltrated (infiltrated CRM) or when tumor cells were detected within 1 mm from CRM (close CRM) and as negative (CRM-) when tumor cells were found in a distance > 1 mm from CRM., Results: CRM+ was found in 83 patients (46.9%). Of them, infiltrated CRM was recorded in 36 (20.3%) and close CRM in 47 (26.6%). Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 132 patients (74.6%). Lymphovascular invasion and primary site in the lower esophagus were independently associated with higher risk of CRM+. Patients with infiltrated CRM, compared to those with close CRM and those CRM-, had the shortest median time-to-relapse (11.4 vs. 15.6 vs. 22.1 months, respectively, p = 0.005) and overall survival (18.7 vs. 23.1 vs. 38.8 months, respectively, p = 0.001). However, CRM status was not an independent predictor of poor outcome. Symptomatic isolated locoregional recurrences were rare in both CRM+ and CRM-patients (4/56 [7.1%] vs. 5/52 [9.6%], p = 0.736), as well as in infiltrated vs. non-infiltrated CRM (CRM- and close CRM) (0/26 [0%] vs. 9/82 [11.0%], p = 0.110)., Conclusion: Although CRM status is associated with poor outcome, it does not represent an independent prognostic factor. The status of CRM did not significantly influence the pattern of cancer relapse., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: The development of clinical guidelines for the surgical management of gastric cancer should be based on robust evidence from well-designed trials. Being able to reliably compare and combine the outcomes of these trials is a key factor in this process., Objectives: To examine variation in outcome reporting by surgical trials for gastric cancer and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in an international consensus study to develop a core outcome set in this field., Data Sources: Systematic literature searches (Evidence Based Medicine, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and a review of study protocols of randomised controlled trials, published between 1996 and 2016., Intervention: Therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorised into groups (outcome themes) and examined for definitions and measurement instruments., Results: Of 1919 abstracts screened, 32 trials (9073 participants) were identified. A total of 749 outcomes were reported of which 96 (13%) were accompanied by an attempted definition. No single outcome was reported by all trials. 'Adverse events' was the most frequently reported 'outcome theme' in which 240 unique terms were described. 12 trials (38%) classified complications according to severity, with 5 (16%) using a formal classification system (Clavien-Dindo or Accordion scale). Of 27 trials which described 'short-term' mortality, 15 (47%) used one of five different definitions. 6 out of the 32 trials (19%) described 'patient-reported outcomes'., Conclusion: Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials is inconsistent. A consensus approach to develop a minimum set of well-defined, standardised outcomes to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer is needed. This should consider the views of all key stakeholders, including patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools - a 'core outcome set' (COS) - to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients., Methods: The first of three stages in the study will identify a 'long-list' of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation., Discussion: This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field.