Clinical Practice Guidelines Should Include Patient’s Preferences
Clinicians want to provide excellent patient care without having to appraise every new study in their field, but producing the “authoritative, instructive resource for most clinical scenarios” is not as straightforward as it would seem, according to David Garcia, MD, professor, University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.
At a special symposium on quality care and clinical practice guidelines during ASH, Garcia discussed the challenges of guideline development and emphasized the need to include the preferences of patients, whose lives are impacted by these guidelines.
“Our job is to apply evidence and guideline recommendations within the context of individual patient preferences and values, and these can never be predicted or accounted for by people writing the guidelines,” he said.
Consider the Patients
The best guidelines are based on “strong evidence,” and the proper ingredients of a “strong recommendation” are 2-fold: the inclusion of high-quality evidence that proves the impact on important clinical outcomes, as opposed to surrogate outcomes that may not matter to the patient; and the demonstration that any risks associated with the intervention are clearly outweighed by benefits, he said.
“These seem obvious, but as physicians we may not always predict accurately what the patient sees as being worthwhile in terms of the risks they are willing to accept for the benefits we can offer,” Garcia said.
Future guideline writers need to focus on patient-important (not surrogate) outcomes whenever possible, he suggested, and to be equipped with better knowledge about how patients view the trade-offs associated with treatment options.
Although many quality measures exist in oncology, few efforts have been undertaken to prioritize, measure, and report quality and costs for an entire region. A recent multiyear, multistakeholder effort to characterize quality of care and costs for Washington State oncology practices revealed that increased quality may be associated with a reduced cost of care in oncology.
Neoadjuvant Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab and Adjuvant Nivolumab in Patients with Localized Microsatellite Instability-High/Mismatch Repair Deficient Gastric Adenocarcinoma: GERCOR NEONIPIGA
Results from the GERCOR NEONIPIGA phase 2 study indicated that neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab was feasible and was associated with a high pathologic complete response rate in patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient resectable esophagogastric junction and gastric adenocarcinoma.