Unknown

Dataset Information

0

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


ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Cui JW 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8435396 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

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

Cui Jiu-Wei JW   Zhou Qing Q   Lu Shun S   Cheng Ying Y   Wang Jie J   Bai Ri-Lan RL   Li Wen-Qian WQ   Qian Lei L   Chen Xiao-Yuan XY   Fan Yun Y   Huang Cheng C   Liu Xiao-Qing XQ   Tu Hai-Yan HY   Yang Jin-Ji JJ   Zhang Li L   Zhou Jian-Ying JY   Zhong Wen-Zhao WZ   Wu Yi-Long YL  

Translational lung cancer research 20210801 8


<h4>Background</h4>Currently, there is no standard context that conforms to the Chinese national framework for evaluating medical decisions regarding the treatment of lung cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>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  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

2022-10-31 | GSE186566 | GEO
| S-EPMC11520481 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9140894 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10979281 | biostudies-literature
| EGAC00001000284 | EGA
| S-EPMC7578517 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10482647 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8765044 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6123189 | biostudies-literature