ObjectivesEarly, accurate diagnosis is crucial for the prognosis of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. To this end, standardization of imaging algorithms, technical requirements, and reporting is... Show moreObjectivesEarly, accurate diagnosis is crucial for the prognosis of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. To this end, standardization of imaging algorithms, technical requirements, and reporting is therefore a prerequisite. Since the first European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR) consensus in 2015, technical achievements, further insights into specific entities, and the revised WHO-classification (2020) and AJCC staging system (2017) made an update necessary. The guidelines are intended to support radiologists in their decision-making and contribute to interdisciplinary tumor board discussions.Materials and methodsA validated Delphi method based on peer-reviewed literature was used to derive consensus among a panel of 46 specialized musculoskeletal radiologists from 12 European countries. Statements were scored online by level of agreement (0 to 10) during two iterative rounds. Either “group consensus,” “group agreement,” or “lack of agreement” was achieved.ResultsEight sections were defined that finally contained 145 statements with comments. Overall, group consensus was reached in 95.9%, and group agreement in 4.1%. This communication contains the first part consisting of the imaging algorithm for suspected soft tissue tumors, methods for local imaging, and the role of tumor centers.ConclusionUltrasound represents the initial triage imaging modality for accessible and small tumors. MRI is the modality of choice for the characterization and local staging of most soft tissue tumors. CT is indicated in special situations. In suspicious or likely malignant tumors, a specialist tumor center should be contacted for referral or teleradiologic second opinion. This should be done before performing a biopsy, without exception. Show less
IntroductionTo update the European guidelines for the assessment of voice quality (VQ) in clinical practice.MethodsNineteen laryngologists–phoniatricians of the European Laryngological Society (ELS... Show moreIntroductionTo update the European guidelines for the assessment of voice quality (VQ) in clinical practice.MethodsNineteen laryngologists–phoniatricians of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) and the Union of the European Phoniatricians (UEP) participated to a modified Delphi process to propose statements about subjective and objective VQ assessments. Two anonymized voting rounds determined a consensus statement to be acceptable when 80% of experts agreed with a rating of at least 3/4. The statements with ≥ 3/4 score by 60–80% of experts were improved and resubmitted to voting until they were validated or rejected.ResultsOf the 90 initial statements, 51 were validated after two voting rounds. A multidimensional set of minimal VQ evaluations was proposed and included: baseline VQ anamnesis (e.g., allergy, medical and surgical history, medication, addiction, singing practice, job, and posture), videolaryngostroboscopy (mucosal wave symmetry, amplitude, morphology, and movements), patient-reported VQ assessment (30- or 10-voice handicap index), perception (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain), aerodynamics (maximum phonation time), acoustics (Mean F0, Jitter, Shimmer, and noise-to-harmonic ratio), and clinical instruments associated with voice comorbidities (reflux symptom score, reflux sign assessment, eating-assessment tool-10, and dysphagia handicap index). For perception, aerodynamics and acoustics, experts provided guidelines for the methods of measurement. Some additional VQ evaluations are proposed for voice professionals or patients with some laryngeal diseases.ConclusionThe ELS-UEP consensus for VQ assessment provides clinical statements for the baseline and pre- to post-treatment evaluations of VQ and to improve collaborative research by adopting common and validated VQ evaluation approach. Show less
BackgroundOver the past 40 years, the tasks of pharmacists have shifted from logistic services to pharmaceutical care (PhC). Despite the increasing importance of measuring quality of care, there is... Show moreBackgroundOver the past 40 years, the tasks of pharmacists have shifted from logistic services to pharmaceutical care (PhC). Despite the increasing importance of measuring quality of care, there is no general definition of Quality Indicators (QIs) to measure PhC. Recognising this, a working group in a European association of PhC researchers, the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE), was established in 2020.AimThis research aimed to review existing definitions of QIs and develop a definition of QIs for PhC.MethodA two-step procedure was applied. Firstly, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify existing QI definitions that were summarised. Secondly, an expert panel, comprised of 17 international experts from 14 countries, participated in two surveys and a discussion using a modified Delphi technique to develop the definition of QIs for PhC.ResultsA total of 182 QI definitions were identified from 174 articles. Of these, 63 QI definitions (35%) cited one of five references as the source. Sixteen aspects that construct QI definitions were derived from the identified definitions. As a result of the Delphi study, the panel reached an agreement on a one-sentence definition of QIs for PhC: “quality indicators for pharmaceutical care are validated measurement tools to monitor structures, processes or outcomes in the context of care provided by pharmacists”.ConclusionBuilding upon existing definition of QIs, an international expert panel developed the PCNE definition of QIs for PhC. This definition is intended for universal use amongst researchers and healthcare providers in PhC. Show less
BackgroundOwing to the rarity and heterogeneity in biology and presentation, there are multiple areas in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of soft tissue sarcoma (STS), with no, low-level or... Show moreBackgroundOwing to the rarity and heterogeneity in biology and presentation, there are multiple areas in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of soft tissue sarcoma (STS), with no, low-level or conflicting evidence.MethodsDuring the first Consensus Conference on the State of Science in Sarcoma (CSSS), we used a modified Delphi process to identify areas of controversy in the field of sarcoma, to name topics with limited evidence-based data in which a scientific and knowledge gap may remain and a consensus statement will help to guide patient management. We determined scientific questions which need to be addressed in the future in order to generate evidence and to inform physicians and caregivers in daily clinical practice in order to improve the outcomes of patients with sarcoma.We conducted a vote on STS key questions and controversies prior to the CSSS meeting, which took place in May 2022.ResultsSixty-two European sarcoma experts participated in the survey.Sixteen strong consensus (≥95%) items were identified by the experts, as well as 30 items with a ≥75% consensus on diagnostic and therapeutic questions. Ultimately, many controversy topics remained without consensus.ConclusionsIn this manuscript, we summarise the voting results and the discussion during the CSSS meeting. Future scientific questions, priorities for clinical trials, registries, quality assurance, and action by stakeholders are proposed. Platforms and partnerships can support innovative approaches to improve management and clinical research in STS. Show less
Background: In ultra-rare sarcomas (URS) the conduction of prospective, randomized trials is challenging. Data from retrospective observational studies (ROS) may represent the best evidence... Show moreBackground: In ultra-rare sarcomas (URS) the conduction of prospective, randomized trials is challenging. Data from retrospective observational studies (ROS) may represent the best evidence available. ROS implicit limitations led to poor acceptance by the scientific community and regulatory authorities. In this context, an expert panel from the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS), agreed on the need to establish a set of minimum requirements for conducting high-quality ROS on the activity of systemic therapies in URS. Methods: Representatives from > 25 worldwide sarcoma reference centres met in November 2020 and identified a list of topics summarizing the main issues encountered in ROS on URS. An online survey on these topics was distributed to the panel; results were summarized by descriptive statistics and discussed during a second meeting (November 2021). Results: Topics identified by the panel included the use of ROS results as external control data, the criteria for contributing centers selection, modalities for ensuring a correct pathological diagnosis and radiologic assessment, consistency of surveillance policies across centers, study end-points, risk of data duplication, results publication. Based on the answers to the survey (55 of 62 invited experts) and discussion the panel agreed on 18 statements summarizing principles of recommended practice. Conclusions: These recommendations will be disseminated by CTOS across the sarcoma community and incorporated in future ROS on URS, to maximize their quality and favor their use as control data when results from prospective studies are unavailable. These recommendations could help the optimal conduction of ROS also in other rare tumors. Show less
Background Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the... Show moreBackground Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus - for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected - can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner. Methods The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice. Discussion The ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes. Show less
BackgroundStructured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the... Show moreBackgroundStructured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus – for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected – can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner.MethodsThe ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice.DiscussionThe ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes. Show less
Wolff, L.; Su, J.H.; Loon, D. van; Es, A. van; Doormaal, P.J. van; Majoie, C.; ... ; MR CLEAN Investigators 2022
Purpose Outcome of endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke patients is depending on the collateral circulation maintaining blood flow to the ischemic territory. We evaluated the inter-rater... Show morePurpose Outcome of endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke patients is depending on the collateral circulation maintaining blood flow to the ischemic territory. We evaluated the inter-rater reliability and accuracy of raters and an automated algorithm for assessing the collateral score (CS, range: 0-3) in acute ischemic stroke patients. Methods Baseline CTA scans with an intracranial anterior occlusion from the MR CLEAN study (n=500) were used. For each core lab CS, ten CTA scans with sufficient quality were randomly selected. After a training session in collateral scoring, all selected CTA scans were individually evaluated for a visual CS by three groups: 7 radiologists, 13 junior and 9 senior radiology residents. Two additional radiologists scored CS to be used as reference, with a third providing a CS to produce a 2 out of 3 consensus CS in case of disagreement. An automated algorithm was also used to compute CS. Inter-rater agreement was reported with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Accuracy of visual and automated CS were calculated. Results 39 CTA scans were assessed (1 corrupt CTA-scan excluded). All groups showed a moderate ICC (0.689-0.780) in comparison to the reference standard. Overall human accuracy was 65 +/- 7% and increased to 88 +/- 5% for dichotomized CS (0-1, 2-3). Automated CS accuracy was 62%, and 90% for dichotomized CS. No significant difference in accuracy was found between groups with different levels of expertise. Conclusion After training, inter-rater reliability in collateral scoring was not influenced by experience. Automated CS performs similar to residents and radiologists in determining a collateral score. Show less
The 13th Acromegaly Consensus Conference was held in November 2019 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and comprised acromegaly experts including endocrinologists and neurosurgeons who considered optimal... Show moreThe 13th Acromegaly Consensus Conference was held in November 2019 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and comprised acromegaly experts including endocrinologists and neurosurgeons who considered optimal approaches for multidisciplinary acromegaly management. Focused discussions reviewed techniques, results, and side effects of surgery, radiotherapy, and medical therapy, and how advances in technology and novel techniques have changed the way these modalities are used alone or in combination. Effects of treatment on patient outcomes were considered, along with strategies for optimizing and personalizing therapeutic approaches. Expert consensus recommendations emphasize how best to implement available treatment options as part of a multidisciplinary approach at Pituitary Tumor Centers of Excellence. Show less
Mantovani, G.; Bastepe, M.; Monk, D.; Sanctis, L. de; Thiele, S.; Ahmed, S.F.; ... ; Linglart, A. 2020
Patients affected by pseudohypoparathyroidism (PHP) or related disorders are characterized by physical findings that may include brachydactyly, a short stature, a stocky build, early-onset obesity,... Show morePatients affected by pseudohypoparathyroidism (PHP) or related disorders are characterized by physical findings that may include brachydactyly, a short stature, a stocky build, early-onset obesity, ectopic ossifications, and neurodevelopmental deficits, as well as hormonal resistance most prominently to parathyroid hormone (PTH). In addition to these alterations, patients may develop other hormonal resistances, leading to overt or subclinical hypothyroidism, hypogonadism and growth hormone (GH) deficiency, impaired growth without measurable evidence for hormonal abnormalities, type 2 diabetes, and skeletal issues with potentially severe limitation of mobility. PHP and related disorders are primarily clinical diagnoses. Given the variability of the clinical, radiological, and biochemical presentation, establishment of the molecular diagnosis is of critical importance for patients. It facilitates management, including prevention of complications, screening and treatment of endocrine deficits, supportive measures, and appropriate genetic counselling. Based on the first international consensus statement for these disorders, this article provides an updated and ready-to-use tool to help physicians and patients outlining relevant interventions and their timing. A life-long coordinated and multidisciplinary approach is recommended, starting as far as possible in early infancy and continuing throughout adulthood with an appropriate and timely transition from pediatric to adult care. Show less
Background: To coordinate and align the content for registration of cholesteatoma care. Methods: Systematic Delphi consensus procedure, consisting three rounds: two written sessions followed by a... Show moreBackground: To coordinate and align the content for registration of cholesteatoma care. Methods: Systematic Delphi consensus procedure, consisting three rounds: two written sessions followed by a face-to-face meeting. Before this procedure, input on important patient outcomes was obtained. Consensus was defined as at least 80% agreement by participants. Hundred-thirty-six adult patients who had undergone cholesteatoma surgery and all ENT surgeons of the Dutch ENT Society were invited. The consensus rounds were attended by ENT surgeons with cholesteatoma surgery experience. Feasibility and acceptability of outcome measures and reporting agreements were assessed in round 1 by 150 ENT surgeons. In round 2 definitions were narrowed and context information to interpret outcome measure were questioned. In round 3, the results, amendments, and the open-ended points were discussed to reach agreement. Results: Most important outcome measures are: 1) the presence or absence of a cholesteatoma in the first 5 years after surgical removal of cholesteatoma, 2) hearing level after surgical removal of cholesteatoma, and 3) the documented assessment of patient's complaints with a validated patient reported outcome measures questionnaire (PROM). Furthermore, consensus was reached on the registration of cholesteatoma type (residual/recurrent), localization of cholesteatoma, and reporting of the presence of cholesteatoma in the follow-up. Conclusion: Consensus was reached on the content and method of registration of cholesteatoma care based on patient's and ENT surgeons input. Three outcome measures were defined. National agreements on the method and content of registration will facilitate monitoring and feedback to the ENT surgeon about the cholesteatoma care. Show less
Harmonization of acquisition and analysis protocols is an important step in the validation of BOLD MRI as a renal biomarker. This harmonization initiative provides technical recommendations based... Show moreHarmonization of acquisition and analysis protocols is an important step in the validation of BOLD MRI as a renal biomarker. This harmonization initiative provides technical recommendations based on a consensus report with the aim to move towards standardized protocols that facilitate clinical translation and comparison of data across sites. We used a recently published systematic review paper, which included a detailed summary of renal BOLD MRI technical parameters and areas of investigation in its supplementary material, as the starting point in developing the survey questionnaires for seeking consensus. Survey data were collected via the Delphi consensus process from 24 researchers on renal BOLD MRI exam preparation, data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation. Consensus was defined as >= 75% unanimity in response. Among 31 survey questions, 14 achieved consensus resolution, 12 showed clear respondent preference (65-74% agreement), and 5 showed equal (50/50%) split in opinion among respondents. Recommendations for subject preparation, data acquisition, processing and reporting are given based on the survey results and review of the literature. These technical recommendations are aimed towards increased inter-site harmonization, a first step towards standardization of renal BOLD MRI protocols across sites. We expect this to be an iterative process updated dynamically based on progress in the field. Show less
Witjes, J.A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Horwich, A. 2020
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder canceir management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistake-holder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available. (C) 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Dekkers, I.A.; Boer, A. de; Sharma, K.; Cox, E.F.; Lamb, H.J.; Buckley, D.L.; ... ; Francis, S. 2019
Objective: The Joint Effort Initiative was endorsed by Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2018 as a collaboration between international researchers and clinicians with an... Show moreObjective: The Joint Effort Initiative was endorsed by Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2018 as a collaboration between international researchers and clinicians with an interest in the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify and prioritise activities for future work of the Joint Effort Initiative.Design: A survey was emailed to delegates of the 2018 OARSI World Congress attending a pre-conference workshop or with a known interest in OAMPs (n = 115). Delegates were asked about the most important issues regarding OAMP implementation. The top 20 issues were synthesised into 17 action statements, and respondents were invited to participate in a priority ranking exercise to determine the order of importance of the statements.Results: Survey respondents (n = 51, 44%) were most commonly female (71%), with an allied health background (57%), affiliated with universities (73%) from Oceania (37%), and Europe/UK (45%). The five highest ranked action statements were:i) Establish guidelines for the implementation of different OAMP models to ensure consistency of delivery and adherence to international best practice.ii) Develop and assess training and education programs for health care professionals (HCPs) delivering OAMPs.iii) Develop and evaluate the implementation and outcomes of novel models of OAMPs.iv) Develop and assess core skill sets and resources for HCPs delivering OA care.v) Develop a framework for enhancing the quality of care provided by OAMPs.Conclusion: Prioritising statements will bring focus to the future work of the Joint Effort Initiative in the future and provide a basis for longer-term actions. (C) 2019 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
