Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address:
Published: September 2020
AI Article Synopsis
Article Abstract
Background: Identification of clear and focused research priorities is crucial to drive research forward.
Objective: To identify research priorities in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) through a multidisciplinary collaboration between clinicians, researchers, and patients.
Design, Setting, And Participants: In phase I, 44 RCC experts provided 24 literature reviews within their field, summarising research gaps (RGs). Three expert discussion meetings and patient interviews were performed, and 39 potential RGs were identified. In phase II, experts (N=82) scored these gaps on a nine-point scale (1-3: not important; 4-6: important; 7-9: critical) through a multistep Delphi process involving three online surveys and two further consensus meetings. The surveys aimed to reach a consensus, defined as ≥70% agreement by experts.
Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Three iterations of the Delphi survey were performed. The results obtained after the third Delphi survey were distributed amongst the RCC experts and patient representatives for final feedback.
Results And Limitations: In the first Delphi survey, the response rate was 56% (46/82), increasing to 67% (55/82) and 71% (58/82) in the second and third iterations, respectively. Survey respondents included 45.7% urologists, 37.0% oncologists, 8.7% radiologists, and 8.6% other specialists (pathologists, health economists, geneticist, and scientists). The process resulted in the identification of 14 crucial RGs, across a broad range of RCC themes. Key themes included further research into systemic therapies for RCC and management strategies that maximise quality of life, especially in patient groups that are "difficult to treat" and have rarer RCC subtypes. Two crucial RGs relate to biomarkers and novel imaging approaches for both localised and metastatic disease, to enable prognostic risk stratification and individualise patient management. Study participants were from a UK and European setting; therefore, we acknowledge that the RGs identified represent European priorities.
Conclusions: These RGs will facilitate international collaboration towards a concerted attempt to improve patients' survival and quality of life.
Patient Summary: We formed a collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and patients to identify research priorities in kidney cancer. We identified 14 priorities that will improve patient outcomes by focusing on research efforts.
