Cargando…

The Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group (CTONG) therapeutic option scoring system: a multiple-parameter framework to assess the value of lung cancer treatment options

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no standard context that conforms to the Chinese national framework for evaluating medical decisions regarding the treatment of lung cancer. METHODS: This draft was formulated after a systematic review and a focus group discussion among 20 experts, who were senior phy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cui, Jiu-Wei, Zhou, Qing, Lu, Shun, Cheng, Ying, Wang, Jie, Bai, Ri-Lan, Li, Wen-Qian, Qian, Lei, Chen, Xiao-Yuan, Fan, Yun, Huang, Cheng, Liu, Xiao-Qing, Tu, Hai-Yan, Yang, Jin-Ji, Zhang, Li, Zhou, Jian-Ying, Zhong, Wen-Zhao, Wu, Yi-Long
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8435396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34584859
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-388
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no standard context that conforms to the Chinese national framework for evaluating medical decisions regarding the treatment of lung cancer. METHODS: This draft was formulated after a systematic review and a focus group discussion among 20 experts, who were senior physicians with extensive clinical experience from the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group (CTONG) task force. Subsequently, a draft and a five-point Likert scale were sent to 300 CTONG working group members. These were modified according to feedback from a four-round modified Delphi approach. Hence, the first version of the ‘Therapeutic option of lung cancer: CTONG scoring system’ was formulated. Afterward, a corresponding questionnaire was designed to collect opinions on the weight allocation of various indicators. This was issued through the WeChat platform, “Oncology News” application and e-mails from October 23, 2020, to November 25, 2020. Participants from numerous occupations in cancer-related fields from various regions of China were included in the study. Overall and subgroup analyses regarding weight allocations were performed. The differences between participant-allocated and reference weights were considered to adjust the framework. RESULTS: The framework contained four aspects and six indicators, including efficacy [progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS) and subsequent treatment], safety [treatment-related severe adverse event (SAE), dose adjustment], quality of life (Qol), and compensation. The reference weights were 50%, 5%, 10%, 5%, 10%, and 20% for each indicator. By November 25, 2020, 1,043 valid questionnaires had been obtained. The majority of the questionnaires were completed by physicians (86.5%). Subgroup analysis among the various groups showed an overall consistent trend. Besides, significant differences between the participant-allocated and reference weights were found among PFS/OS (difference: −11.5%), compensation (difference: −10.1%), and subsequent treatment (difference: 9.7%) indicators. After discussion, the final weight allocations were set at 45%, 10%, 15%, 5%, 10%, and 15% for PFS/OS, subsequent treatment, treatment-related SAE, dose adjustment, Qol, and compensation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CTONG scoring system, as an objective evaluation model that involves multiple parameters, is a breakthrough method for evaluating the therapeutic value of lung cancer treatment options in China, which is worthy of further verification in future clinical practice.