PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Our aim was to reach a consensus on the management of the most controversial issues of advanced ovarian cancer.
Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of 5 experts analyzed current management of advanced ovarian cancer, identified controversies, critically analyzed the evidence, and formulated guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a panel of 15 experts was selected to test agreement with the statements through two Delphi rounds. Items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). In the first and second rounds, consensus was considered if ≥70% of answers pertained to category 1 or category 4.
Overall, 112 statements were incorporated in the following areas: 1) biomarkers and hereditary ovarian cancer; 2) first-line treatment; 3) recurrent disease when platinum might be the best option; and 4) post-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors setting. In the first Delphi round, 37 statements reached consensus and did thus not pass to the second round. After the second round, another 18 statements reached consensus. Forty-six of the consensus were with the agreement and 9 with the disagreement.
Through the methodology used, a consensus was reached in approximately half of the statements. The results of this work may be useful in addressing the most controversial issues on the management of advanced ovarian cancer.
Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of 5 experts analyzed current management of advanced ovarian cancer, identified controversies, critically analyzed the evidence, and formulated guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a panel of 15 experts was selected to test agreement with the statements through two Delphi rounds. Items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). In the first and second rounds, consensus was considered if ≥70% of answers pertained to category 1 or category 4.
Overall, 112 statements were incorporated in the following areas: 1) biomarkers and hereditary ovarian cancer; 2) first-line treatment; 3) recurrent disease when platinum might be the best option; and 4) post-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors setting. In the first Delphi round, 37 statements reached consensus and did thus not pass to the second round. After the second round, another 18 statements reached consensus. Forty-six of the consensus were with the agreement and 9 with the disagreement.
Through the methodology used, a consensus was reached in approximately half of the statements. The results of this work may be useful in addressing the most controversial issues on the management of advanced ovarian cancer.
摘要：
目的：我们的目的是就晚期卵巢癌最有争议的治疗问题达成共识。
方法：使用标称组和德尔菲技术。由5名专家组成的指导委员会分析了晚期卵巢癌的当前管理，确定的争议，批判性地分析了证据，并为临床医生制定了指导性声明。随后，选择了一个由15名专家组成的小组，通过两轮Delphi测试与声明的一致性。项目以4分的李克特量表从1（完全不同意）到4（完全同意）进行评分。在第一轮和第二轮中，如果≥70%的答案属于第1类或第4类，则认为是共识。
结果：总体而言，在以下领域纳入了112项陈述：1）生物标志物和遗传性卵巢癌；2）一线治疗；3）铂可能是最佳选择的复发性疾病；4）聚（二磷酸腺苷-核糖）聚合酶（PARP）抑制剂后设置。在第一轮Delphi中,37项声明达成共识，因此没有进入第二轮。第二轮之后,另有18项声明达成共识。有46个共识是同意的，有9个共识是不同意的。
结论：通过使用的方法，大约一半的声明达成了共识。这项工作的结果可能有助于解决有关晚期卵巢癌管理的最有争议的问题。
方法：使用标称组和德尔菲技术。由5名专家组成的指导委员会分析了晚期卵巢癌的当前管理，确定的争议，批判性地分析了证据，并为临床医生制定了指导性声明。随后，选择了一个由15名专家组成的小组，通过两轮Delphi测试与声明的一致性。项目以4分的李克特量表从1（完全不同意）到4（完全同意）进行评分。在第一轮和第二轮中，如果≥70%的答案属于第1类或第4类，则认为是共识。
结果：总体而言，在以下领域纳入了112项陈述：1）生物标志物和遗传性卵巢癌；2）一线治疗；3）铂可能是最佳选择的复发性疾病；4）聚（二磷酸腺苷-核糖）聚合酶（PARP）抑制剂后设置。在第一轮Delphi中,37项声明达成共识，因此没有进入第二轮。第二轮之后,另有18项声明达成共识。有46个共识是同意的，有9个共识是不同意的。
结论：通过使用的方法，大约一半的声明达成了共识。这项工作的结果可能有助于解决有关晚期卵巢癌管理的最有争议的问题。
