An assessment of cancer centre level designation and guideline adherent care in those with rectal cancer: A population based retrospective cohort study.

Background: Institutions providing care to individuals with cancer are organized based on available resources and treatments offered. It is presumed that increasing levels of care will result in improved quality of care and outcomes. The objective is to determine whether Cancer Level Designation is associated with guideline adherent care and/or survival.

Colorectal Cancer in Individuals with Cirrhosis: A Population-Based Study Assessing Practice Patterns, Outcomes, and Predictors of Survival.

Those with cirrhosis who develop colorectal cancer (CRC) are an understudied group who may tolerate treatments poorly and are at risk of worse outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study of 842 individuals from Ontario, Canada, with a pre-existing diagnosis of cirrhosis who underwent surgery for CRC between 2009 and 2017. Practice patterns, overall survival, and short-term morbidity and mortality were assessed.

In proportion: approaches for displaying patient-reported outcome research study results as percentages responding to treatment.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can promote valuable patient-clinician communication and aid the decision-making process regarding treatment options. Despite these benefits, both patients and doctors face challenges in interpreting PRO scores. The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for presenting PRO results expressed as proportions of patients with changes from baseline (improved/stable/worsened) for use in patient educational materials and decision aids.

Making a picture worth a thousand numbers: recommendations for graphically displaying patient-reported outcomes data.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care in multiple ways: (1) using an individual patient's PRO data to inform his/her management, (2) providing PRO results from comparative research studies in patient educational materials/decision aids, and (3) reporting PRO results from comparative research studies in peer-reviewed publications. Patients and clinicians endorse the value of PRO data; however, variations in how PRO measures are scored and scaled, and in how the data are reported, make interpretation challenging and limit their use in clinical practice. We conducted a modified Delphi process to develop stakeholder-engaged, evidence-based recommendations for PRO data display for the three above applications to promote understanding and use.

Picture This: Presenting Longitudinal Patient-Reported Outcome Research Study Results to Patients.

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials and research studies can inform patient-clinician decision making. However, data presentation issues specific to PROs, such as scaling directionality (higher scores may represent better or worse outcomes) and scoring strategies (normed v. nonnormed scores), can make the interpretation of PRO scores uniquely challenging.

Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings.

Methods: We conducted an e-survey of oncology clinicians and PRO researchers (supplemented by one-on-one clinician interviews) that randomized respondents to view one of the three line-graph formats (average scores over time for two treatments on four domains): (1) higher scores consistently indicating "better" patient status; (2) higher scores indicating "more" of what was being measured (better for function, worse for symptoms); or (3) normed scores.

What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability.

Cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography-CT in the evaluation of cancer of unknown primary of the head and neck.

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET)-CT is a useful diagnostic adjunct for cancer unknown primary (CUP) of the head and neck; however, the increased cost has not been justified with an economic evaluation in this patient population.

Methods: A decision tree analysis was performed from the perspective of the third party payer. Primary outcome was cost per life year gained ($/LYG).

An evidence-based estimate of the appropriate radiotherapy utilization rate for colorectal cancer.

Purpose: Current estimates of the proportion of cancer patients who will require RT are based almost entirely on expert opinion. The objective of this study was to estimate the proportion of incident cases of colorectal cancer that should receive RT using an evidence-based approach.

Methods And Materials: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify indications for RT for colorectal cancer, and to ascertain the level of evidence that supported each indication.