Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has poor survival. Current treatments offer little likelihood of cure or long-term survival. This systematic review evaluates prognostic models predicting overall survival in patients diagnosed with PDAC. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of eight electronic databases from their date of inception through to December 2019. Studies that published models predicting survival in patients with PDAC were identified. Results: 3297 studies were identified; 187 full-text articles were retrieved and 54 studies of 49 unique prognostic models were included. Of these, 28 (57.1%) were conducted in patients with advanced disease, 17 (34.7%) with resectable disease, and four (8.2%) in all patients. 34 (69.4%) models were validated, and 35 (71.4%) reported model discrimination, with only five models reporting values >0.70 in both derivation and validation cohorts. Many (n = 27) had a moderate to high risk of bias and most (n = 33) were developed using retrospective data. No variables were unanimously found to be predictive of survival when included in more than one study. Conclusion: Most prognostic models were developed using retrospective data and performed poorly. Future research should validate instruments performing well locally in international cohorts and investigate other potential predictors of survival.@en

Background: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) monitor compliance against optimal practice and provide feedback to the clinical community and wider stakeholder groups. Despite a number of CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of healthcare delivery, no recommendations for inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in CQRs exist. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of recommendations for PROMs inclusion of in CQRs. Method: An online two-round Delphi survey was performed among CQR data custodians, quality of life researchers, biostatisticians and clinicians largely recruited in Australia. A list of statements for the recommendations was identified from a literature and survey of the Australian registries conducted in 2019. The statements were grouped into the following domains: rationale, setting, ethics, instrument, administration, data management, statistical methods, and feedback and reporting. Eighteen experts were invited to participate, 11 agreed to undertake the first online survey (round 1). Of these, nine experts completed the online survey for round 2. Results: From 117 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 72 recommendations (55 from round 1 and 17 from round 2) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Recommendations were refined for clarity and to read as stand-alone statements. Ten overlapped conceptually and, therefore, were merged to reduce repetition. The final 62 recommendations were sent for review to the panel members for their feedback, which was incorporated into the final set. Conclusion: This is the first study to develop preliminary recommendations for PROMs inclusion in CQRs. Recommendations for PROMs implementation are critically important for registries to assure meaningful PROMs data capture, use, interpretation, and reporting to improve health outcomes and healthcare value.@en

Background: This study: (i) assessed compliance with a consensus set of quality indicators (QIs) in pancreatic cancer (PC); and (ii) evaluated the association between compliance with these QIs and survival. Methods: Four years of data were collected for patients diagnosed with PC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A multivariable analysis tested the relationship between significant patient and hospital characteristics, patient cluster effects within hospitals and survival. Results: 1061 patients were eligible for this study. Significant association with improved survival were: (i) in the potentially resectable group having adjuvant chemotherapy administered following surgery or a reason documented (HR, 0.29; 95 CI, 0.19–0.46); (ii) in the locally advanced group included having chemotherapy ± chemoradiation, or a reason documented for not undergoing treatment (HR, 0.38; 95 CI, 0.25–0.58); and (iii) in the metastatic disease group included having documented performance status at presentation (HR, 0.65; 95 CI, 0.47–0.89), being seen by an oncologist in the absence of treatment (HR, 0.48; 95 CI, 0.31–0.77), and disease management discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting (HR, 0.79; 95 CI, 0.64–0.96). Conclusion: Capture of a concise data set has enabled quality of care to be assessed.@en