Top

Published in:

01-07-2015 | Original Article

Development of clinical practice guidelines for supportive care in childhood cancer—prioritization of topics using a Delphi approach

Authors: E. A. H. Loeffen, R. L. Mulder, L. C. M. Kremer, E. M. C. Michiels, F. C. H. Abbink, L. M. Ball, H. Segers, A. M. C. Mavinkurve-Groothuis, F. J. Smit, I. J. M. Vonk, M. D. vd Wetering, W. J. E. Tissing

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 7/2015

Abstract

Introduction

Currently, very few guidelines for supportive care for children with cancer exist. In the Netherlands, nationwide guidelines are over 10 years old and mostly based on expert opinion. Consequently, there is growing support and need for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), which ought to be developed with a well-defined methodology and include a systematic search of literature, evidence summaries, and a transparent description of the decision process for the final recommendations. Development of CPGs is time consuming; therefore, it is important to prioritize topics for which there is the greatest clinical demand.

Objectives

This study aims to prioritize childhood cancer supportive care topics for development of CPGs.

Methods

A Delphi survey consisting of two rounds was conducted to prioritize relevant childhood cancer supportive care topics for the development of CPGs. A group of experts comprising 15 pediatric oncologists, 15 pediatric oncology nurses, and 15 general pediatricians involved in care for childhood cancer patients were invited to participate. All relevant supportive care topics in childhood cancer were rated.

Results

In both rounds, 36 panellists (82 %) responded. Agreement between panellists was very good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.918 (95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.849–0.966, p < 0.001) in round 2. The ten topics with the highest score in the final round were infection, sepsis, febrile neutropenia, pain, nausea/vomiting, restrictions in daily life and activities, palliative care, procedural sedation, terminal care, and oral mucositis.

Conclusion

We successfully used a Delphi survey to prioritize childhood cancer supportive care topics for the development of CPGs. This is a first step towards uniform and evidence-based Dutch guidelines in supportive care in childhood cancer. Even though performed nationally, we believe that this study can also be regarded as an example starting point for international development of CPGs in the field of supportive care in cancer or any other field for that matter.

Available only for authorised users

Hudson MM, Link MP, Simone JV (2014) Milestones in the curability of pediatric cancers. J Clin Oncol 32:1–8

Hunger SP, Lu X, Devidas M, Camitta BM, Gaynon PS, Winick NJ et al (2012) Improved survival for children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia between 1990 and 2005: a report from the children’s oncology group. J Clin Oncol 30:1663–1669PubMedCentralPubMed

Creutzig U, Zimmermann M, Reinhardt D, Dworzak M, Stary J, Lehrnbecher T (2004) Early deaths and treatment-related mortality in children undergoing therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: analysis of the multicenter clinical trials AML-BFM 93 and AML-BFM 98. J Clin Oncol 22:4384–4393PubMed

Sung L, Aplenc R, Alonzo T (2013) Effectiveness of supportive care measures to reduce infections in pediatric AML: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Blood 121:3573–3577CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Jastaniah W. (2012) Improved outcome in pediatric AML due to augmented supportive care 919–21

Grimshaw J, Russell I (1993) Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 342:1317–1322PubMed

Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999) Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318:527–530CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C

Gibbons RJ, Smith S, Antman E (2003) American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines: part I: where do they come from? Circulation 107:2979–2986CrossRefPubMed

10.

Califf RM, Peterson ED, Gibbons RJ, Garson A, Brindis RG, Beller GA et al (2002) Integrating quality into the cycle of therapeutic development. J Am Coll Cardiol 40:1895–1901PubMed

11.

Kremer LCM, Mulder L, Oeffinger KC, Bhatia S, Landier W, Levitt G et al (2013) A worldwide collaboration to harmonize guidelines for the long-term follow-up of childhood and young adult cancer survivors: a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 60:543–549PubMed

12.

Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Ann M (1996) Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 317:465–468CrossRef

13.

Kamps WA, Naafs-Wilstra MC, Schouten-van Meeteren AYN, Tissing WJE (2005) Werkboek Ondersteunende behandeling in de Kinderoncologie. VU University Press, Amsterdam

14.

Wennberg J (2010) Tracking medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

15.

Lehrnbecher T, Phillips R, Alexander S, Alvaro F, Carlesse F, Fisher B et al (2012) Guideline for the management of fever and neutropenia in children with cancer and/or undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol 30:4427–4438PubMed

16.

Dupuis LL, Boodhan S, Holdsworth M, Robinson PD, Hain R, Portwine C et al (2013) Guideline for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic medication in pediatric cancer patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 60:1073–1082PubMed

17.

Dupuis LL, Robinson PD, Boodhan S, Holdsworth M, Portwine C, Gibson P et al (2014) Guideline for the prevention and treatment of anticipatory nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy in pediatric cancer patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 61:1506–1512PubMed

18.

Dupuis LL, Boodhan S, Sung L, Portwine C, Hain R, McCarthy P et al (2011) Guideline for the classification of the acute emetogenic potential of antineoplastic medication in pediatric cancer patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 57:191–198PubMed

19.

Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH (2014) Evidence-based practice is not synonymous with delivery of uniform health care. JAMA 312:1293–1294CrossRefPubMed

20.

Osborne J (2008) Best practices in quantitative methods. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks

21.

Landis JR, Koch GG, Biometrics S, Mar N (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32:1008–1015PubMed

23.

Murphy M, Black NA, Lamping DL, Mckee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J et al (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Heal Technol Assess 2:1–88

24.

Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311:376–380CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

25.

Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR (2005) Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:37PubMedCentralPubMed

26.

Green R A. (2014) The Delphi Technique in Educational Research. SAGE Open 4

27.

Powell C (2003) The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 41:376–382PubMed

28.

Rowe G, Wright G, Bolger F (1991) Delphi: a reevaluation of research and theory. Technol Forecast Soc Change 39:235–251

29.

Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schünemann HJ, Woolf S (2012) Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci 7:60PubMedCentralPubMed

30.

Walsh TR, Irwin DE, Meier A, Varni JW, Darren A, Dewalt DA (2014) The use of focus groups in the development of the PROMIS pediatrics item bank. Qual Life Res 17:725–735

Title: Development of clinical practice guidelines for supportive care in childhood cancer—prioritization of topics using a Delphi approach
Authors: E. A. H. Loeffen
R. L. Mulder
L. C. M. Kremer
E. M. C. Michiels
F. C. H. Abbink
L. M. Ball
H. Segers
A. M. C. Mavinkurve-Groothuis
F. J. Smit
I. J. M. Vonk
M. D. vd Wetering
W. J. E. Tissing
Publication date: 01-07-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 7/2015
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2559-7

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2015

Evaluation of the progression and treatment of experimental periodontitis in rats subjected to chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil

Trajectories of fear of recurrence in women with breast cancer

Changing factors associated with parent activation after pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant

Relationship of the urine cortisol level with the performance status of patients with lung cancer: a retrospective study

Opioid-taking self-efficacy affects the quality of life of Taiwanese patients with cancer pain

Cancer-related fatigue: results from patient experience surveys undertaken in a UK regional cancer centre

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer