Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 25, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 19676
© 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Erps, J. Articles by Abraham, I. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Van Erps, J. Articles by Abraham, I.

Abstract

Promoting evidence-based management of anemia in cancer patients: Background and scientific validation of RESPOND, a web-based clinical decision support system

Algemeen Stedelijk Ziekenhuis Aalst, Aalst, Belgium; Clinique de Genolier, Genolier, Switzerland; Matrix45, Earlysville, VA; Institut Bergonie, Bordeaux, France; F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland; InferMed, London, United Kingdom; Roche S.A., Brussels, Belgium

19676

Background: The 2006 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines for erythropoietic proteins in cancer-related anemia provide the most up-to-date assessment of the evidence base. To promote clinicians’ adoption of evidence- based (EB) practice guidelines (EBPGs), it is critical to bring guidelines to the point of care. RESPOND is an EB clinical decision support system (CDSS) based on the EORTC guidelines. CDSSs are seldom validated. We describe the methodologies of two studies being conducted to validate RESPOND. Methods. Study 1: descriptive design - accuracy and content validity. Five experts are asked to rate the accuracy of algorithms derived from the guidelines; the objective being an intraclass correlation coefficient =0.90 for each of 27 algorithmic sets. Study 2: hybrid matched pre-post design - concurrent and discriminant validity. Two patient cohorts (n=33 each) matched by type of cancer and similarity of chemotherapy regimen ie, sample 1 (4 months prospective data after RESPOND [post]) and sample 2 (4 months retrospective data prior to RESPOND [pre]) were used to test concurrent validity (congruence scores [CS] of sample 1) and discriminant validity (difference between sample 2 and sample 1 CS). A score is calculated for each patient to quantify the extent to which treatment and outcomes are congruent with the EORTC EBPG. Table 1. Calculation of the congruence score ESA, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent; Hb, hemoglobin, Q1W, once weekly, Q3W, once every three weeks Conclusions. These studies will provide the necessary validation for RESPOND as an evidence-based clinical support tool.

Author Disclosure

Employment or Leadership Bonsultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Roche Amgen, Baxter Oncology, Chugai Pharma USA, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Schering AG Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Ortho Biotech, Roche, Schering AG Roche