Abstract
Background Studies of prognostication in advanced cancer use a wide range of outcomes and outcome measures, making it difficult to compare these studies and their findings. Core Outcome Sets facilitate comparability and standardisation between studies and would benefit future prognostic research. This qualitative study is the second step in developing such a Core Outcome Set, with the aim to explore the perceptions and experiences of patients with advanced cancer, informal caregivers, and clinicians regarding the potential outcomes of prognostication.
Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients living with advanced cancer (n=8), informal caregivers (n=10), and clinicians (n=10) recruited from palliative care services across three sites in London, United Kingdom. Interviews were conducted in-person, via telephone, or video conferencing, and were audio-recorded. Data were analysed using a thematic framework analysis approach. Findings were compared with outcomes derived from a previously published systematic review.
Results We identified 33 outcomes, 16 of which were not previously reported in the literature. We grouped outcomes into 10 domains, using a modified COMET taxonomy: 1) mortality/survival; 2) general physiological/clinical outcomes; 3) psychiatric outcomes; 4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing; 5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; 6) social functioning; 7) delivery of care; 8) perceived health status; 9) personal circumstances; 10) societal/carer burden. These findings highlighted discrepancies between the priorities of existing research and those of stakeholders.
Conclusions This study offers valuable insights into outcomes significant to key stakeholders, underscoring the need for a patient-centred approach in research and clinical practice in prognostication in advanced cancer. These outcomes will play a key role in the development of a Core Outcome Set to assess the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504625/
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council and Marie Curie Cancer Care (grant number ES/P000592/1) as part of CSs PhD studentship.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the London-Camberwell St. Giles Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority on 6th September 2022 (reference 22/LO/0469).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Revised abstract and manuscript in response to peer-review feedback.
Data Availability
Data are available upon reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
