Importance of quality-of-life priorities and preferences surrounding treatment decision making in patients with cancer and oncology clinicians

A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC

PURPOSE

Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans.

RESULTS

Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03806738.

Preparing for Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Hispanic Patient and Caregiver Needs

BACKGROUND

Cancer disproportionately affects Hispanic populations, yet the preparedness of Hispanic caregiver-patient dyads facing cancer remains understudied. This study aims to identify essential components of preparedness needs and inform future psychosocial interventions for this demographic.

METHODS

Secondary analyses were conducted utilizing focus groups to develop a communication intervention for Hispanic patients and caregivers. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using NVivo v12 (2020).

RESULTS

Analysis revealed symptom management and treatment comprehension as pivotal aspects of preparation. Additionally, preparedness among our sample emerged by addressing the multifaceted dimensions of preparedness, including psychological, emotional, educational, familial, practical, financial, and spiritual aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailoring interventions encompassing diverse dimensions of preparedness can foster inclusivity and maximize their impact on supportive measures. This underscores the necessity for culturally sensitive approaches when delivering interventions supporting Hispanic individuals navigating the challenges of cancer.

Review of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials addressing head/neck cancers

BACKGROUND

To assess the frequency of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and non-PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing head/neck cancers.

METHODS

We included RCTs about interventions to treat head/neck cancers. PubMed was searched on September 16, 2022 and included studies published during three periods (2000-2002, 2010-2012, and 2020-2022). Data on types of outcomes and instruments to measure them were extracted and organized into PROs and non-PROs, and temporal trends for reporting outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

There was a reduction in the frequency of non-PROs (40% to 22%) and an increase in PROs (5% to 19%) over 20 years. The frequency of reporting both non-PROs and PROs seemed to be stable over the same period (55% to 58%). A great variety of instruments to measure PROs and non-PROs was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a growth in the types of PROs in more recent years, and they were more frequently reported in RCTs. However, head/neck cancer trials with a combination of PROs and non-PROs were the most prevalent.

The female self-advocacy in Cancer Survivorship scale is a psychometrically sound measure of self-advocacy in male cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

To develop and psychometrically evaluate an adapted version of the Female Self-Advocacy in Cancer Survivorship (FSACS) Scale in men with a history of cancer.

METHODS

This psychometric instrument development and validation study used a two-phase approach to first adapt the FSACS Scale items to reflect the experience of men with a history of cancer and then evaluate the psychometric properties of the adapted scale compared to the original FSACS Scale. The study was conducted from December 2018 through April 2022 through cancer clinics, patient registries, and national advocacy organizations. We evaluated scale reliability and validity using reliability coefficients, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and item analyses to determine a final set of scale items.

RESULTS

Item responses from N = 171 men with a history of cancer were evaluated to determine scale validity. After removing poor-performing items based on item-level analyses, factor analyses confirmed that a 3-factor structure of both the adapted and original FSACS Scale best fit the scale. The 10 new items did not outperform the original 20-item scale and were therefore excluded from the final scale. The final 20-item scale explained 87.94% of item variance and subscale's Cronbach α varied from 0.65 to 0.86.

CONCLUSION

The SACS Scale can be used in research and clinical contexts to assess the propensity of men and women to get their needs, values, and priorities met in the face of a challenge.

What Matters Most: The Documented Goals, Values and Motivators of Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Goals of care conversations are essential to delivery of goal concordant care. Infrequent and inconsistent goals of care documentation potentially limit delivery of goal concordant care.

METHODS

At Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Cancer Center, a standardized documentation template was designed and implemented to increase goals of care documentation by oncologists. The centralized, prompt-based template included value clarification of the goals and values of advanced cancer patients beyond treatment preferences. Documented conversations using the template during the initial pilot period were reviewed to characterization the clinical context in which conversations were recorded. Common goals and motivators were also identified.

RESULTS

A total of 178 advanced cancer patients had at least 1 documented conversation by a medical oncologist using the goals of care template. Oncologists consistently documented within the template goals of therapy and motivating factors in decision making. The most frequently documented goals of care were "Avoiding Pain and Suffering," "Physical Independence," and "Living as Long as Possible." The least recorded goal was "Comfort Focused Treatment Only."

CONCLUSIONS

Review of oncologist documented goals of care conversations using a prompt-based template allowed for characterization of the clinical context, therapy goals and motivators of advanced cancer patients. Communication of goals of care conversations by oncologists using a standardized prompt-based template within a centralized location has the potential to improve delivery of goal concordant care.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines

BACKGROUND

Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement.

METHOD

Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type.

RESULTS

The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.

POLICY SUMMARY

Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Factors Affecting Patient and Caregiver Preferences for Treatment of Myeloma and Indolent Lymphoma

PURPOSE

Treatment options for myeloma and indolent lymphoma are increasing exponentially, with distinct efficacy, side effects, and cost. We aim to determine the factors influencing patient and caregiver treatment preferences.

METHODS

Patients and caregivers of patients with myeloma and indolent lymphoma were recruited from two cancer centers in Singapore. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes and levels were selected based on a previous qualitative study. The relative preference for levels within each attribute (part worth utility values) and the extent to which an attribute would influence decision making (relative importance) were calculated. Patient and caregiver participation in the treatment plan selection process were assessed using the Control Preference Scale.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-nine patients and 169 caregivers were recruited. Patients placed the highest importance on out-of-pocket costs (relative importance = 35%), followed by efficacy (25%), persistent side effects (19%), administration route (8%), treatment duration (7%), and short-term side effects (5%). Caregivers ranked efficacy (27%) as the most important attribute, over out-of-pocket costs (24%). Most patients preferred a collaborative role in the shared decision-making process, while similar proportions of caregivers favored active and collaborative roles.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that both patients and caregivers consider cost seriously when making treatment decisions. Furthermore, as patient and caregiver preferences may differ, there are implications for treatment selection and counseling, especially in cultures where caregivers have more prominent roles in treatment planning.

The Perspective of Patients and Health Professionals on the Prioritization of Assisted Reproductive Techniques. The PRIOFER Study

Purpose

To determine the perspective of patients and professionals in Assisted Reproduction Units (ARU) on the importance of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) compared to other elective procedures, to highlight the relevance of ART as an elective procedure and the impact of delayed interventions on patients.

Design Patients and Methods

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, online survey-based study was conducted in infertility patients and partners (n=98) and ARU healthcare professionals (n=83). The survey included a best-worst scaling (BWS) experiment and an ad-hoc questionnaire to analyze the pandemic impact on ART management and infertility patients in Spain. In the BWS, each respondent established priorities choosing which patient profile should be rated as the highest and lowest priority profile on a waiting list. To understand the importance that they give to assisted reproduction compared to other procedures, three very common elective procedures involving different patient profiles were selected: cataract surgery, knee arthroplasty, and varicose vein surgery. For each procedure, three hypothetical patient profiles corresponding to three different degrees of severity on a waiting list were designed.

Results

Patients attributed greater importance to ART profiles (BWS score: patients 0.14 vs professionals -0.05; p<0.01) whereas professionals prioritized cataract surgery (patients 0.06 vs professionals 0.23; p<0.01). Concerning the profile severity, more severe profiles were prioritized in all procedures by both groups. Patients' and professionals' perspectives on the impact of the pandemic were similar, with exceptions: information received for resuming ART; health care provision in crisis situations; and reduction of parenting options. The pandemic affected patients' ability to conceive a child (70.4% of those surveyed), their psychological well-being (75.5%), and partner, social, and work relationships (69.4%).

Conclusion

Preference studies involving patients and professionals can provide important information to define framework criteria for the management of waiting lists for elective procedures, and to prioritize interventions during pandemic periods. The pandemic impact on infertility patients highlights the relevance of developing measures and strategies to cope with similar future situations in the most appropriate way.

A survey of surgical patients' perspectives and preferences towards general anesthesia techniques and shared-decision making

BACKGROUND

The decision about which type of general anesthetic to administer is typically made by the clinical team without patient engagement. This study examined patients' preferences, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and perceived social norms about anesthesia and about engaging in the decision regarding general anesthetic choice with their clinician.

METHODS

We conducted a survey in the United States, sent to a panel of surgical patients through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) from March 2022 through May 2022. Questions were developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and validated measures were used when available. A patient partner who had experienced both intravenous and inhaled anesthesia contributed to the development and refinement of the questions.

RESULTS

A total of 806 patients who received general anesthesia for an elective procedure in the last five years completed the survey. 43% of respondents preferred a patient-led decision making role and 28% preferred to share decision making with their clinical team, yet only 7.8% reported being engaged in full shared decision making about the anesthesia they received. Intraoperative awareness, pain, nausea, vomiting and quickly returning to work and usual household activities were important to respondents. Waking up in the middle of surgery was the most commonly reported concern, despite this experience being reported only 8% of the time. Most patients (65%) who searched for information about general anesthesia noted that it took a lot of effort to find the information, and 53% agreed to feeling frustrated during the search.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients prefer a patient-led or shared decision making process when it comes to their anesthetic care and want to be engaged in the decision. However, only a small percentage of patients reported being fully engaged in the decision. Further studies should inform future shared decision-making tools, informed consent materials, educational materials and framing of anesthetic choices for patients so that they are able to make a choice regarding the anesthetic they receive.

Comparison of quality of life, symptom and functional outcomes following surgical treatment for colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgical procedures can have a significant impact on quality-of-life (QoL), functional and symptom outcomes. This retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care center evaluated the influence of four colorectal surgical procedures on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

512 patients undergoing colorectal neoplasia surgery between June 2015 and December 2017 were identified via the Cabrini Monash Colorectal Neoplasia database. Primary outcomes measured were the mean changes in PROMs following surgery utilizing the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures colorectal cancer (CRC) PROMs.

RESULTS

242 patients from 483 eligible patients responded (50% participation rate). Responders and non-responders were comparable in median age (72 vs. 70 years), gender (48% vs. 52% male), time from surgery (<1 and >1 year), overall stage at diagnosis and type of surgery. Respondents underwent either a right hemicolectomy, ultra-low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection or a transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal minimally invasive surgery. Right hemicolectomy patients reported the best post-operative function and reduced symptoms, significantly better (P < 0.01) than ultra-low anterior resection patients who reported the worst outcomes in multiple areas (body image, embarrassment, flatulence, diarrhoea, stool frequency). Furthermore, patients undergoing an abdominoperineal resection reported the worst scores for body image, urinary frequency, urinary incontinence, buttock pain, faecal incontinence and male impotence.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in PROMs in CRC surgical procedures is demonstrable. The worst post-operative functional and symptom scores were reported after either an ultra-low anterior resection or an abdominoperineal resection. Implementation of PROMs will identify and aid early patient referral to allied health and support services.

Current Health State Affected Patient Preferences More Than Disease Status: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Multiple Myeloma

OBJECTIVES

To examine how disease status and current health state influence treatment preferences of patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

METHODS

Participants with MM from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom completed a web-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and EQ-5D assessment. The DCE elicited preferences for 8 attributes: increased life expectancy, increased time to relapse, pain, fatigue, risk of infection, administration (route and duration), frequency of administration, and monitoring. Multinomial logit models were used to analyze DCE preference data and to calculate life expectancy trade-offs.

RESULTS

Three hundred participants with MM (newly diagnosed, transplant eligible, n = 108; newly diagnosed, transplant ineligible, n = 105; relapsed-refractory, n = 87) completed the survey. The most valued attributes were pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy. Participants would want an additional 2.7 years of life expectancy (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-3.1 years) to tolerate extreme pain and an additional 2.0 years of life expectancy (95% CI 1.6-2.3 years) to tolerate constant fatigue. Participants in a better health state (third EQ-5D score quartile [0.897]) required less additional life expectancy than participants with a worse health state (first EQ-5D score quartile [0.662]) to tolerate extreme pain (2.3 years [95% CI 1.9-2.6 years] vs 3.0 years [95% CI 2.6-3.4 years]; P = .007). There was little difference in treatment preferences between newly diagnosed and relapsed-refractory patients for pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current health state influenced treatment preferences of patients with MM more than disease status and should be considered when making treatment decisions.

Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions

BACKGROUND

Past studies have shown a commission bias for cancer treatment, a tendency to choose active treatment even when watchful waiting is less risky. This bias suggests motivations for action beyond mortality statistics, but recent evidence suggests that individuals differ in their emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP), the tendency to calibrate emotional reactions to probability. The current study aims to examine the role of ESP in the commission bias, specifically whether those higher in ESP are more likely to choose watchful waiting when risk probabilities align with that choice.

METHODS

Participants (N = 1,055) read a scenario describing a hypothetical cancer diagnosis and chose between surgery and watchful waiting, with random assignment between versions where the mortality rate was either lower for surgery or for watchful waiting. We modeled choice using the Possibility Probability Questionnaire (PPQ), a measure of ESP, and several other individual differences in a logistic regression.

RESULTS

We observed a commission bias as in past studies with most participants choosing surgery both when surgery was optimal (71%) and when watchful waiting was optimal (58%). An ESP × Condition interaction indicated that the predictive role of ESP depended on condition. Those higher in ESP were more likely to choose surgery when probabilities favored surgery, β = 0.57, P < 0.001, but when probabilities favored watchful waiting, ESP had a near-zero relationship with choice, β = 0.05, P < 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of ESP in decision making is context specific. Higher levels of ESP predict choosing action when that action is warranted but do not predict a shift away from surgery when watchful waiting offers better chances of survival. ESP does not overcome the commission bias.

HIGHLIGHTS

Past studies have identified a "commission bias," a tendency to choose active treatment over watchful waiting, even when mortality rate is lower for waiting.Evaluation of risk probabilities is related to individual differences in emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP) and has been shown to predict reactions to and decisions about health risk situations.ESP appears to be selectively factored into decision making. ESP was a robust predictor of choosing surgery when probability information supported surgery but did not predict decisions when probability information supported watchful waiting.Those who are most emotionally attuned to probabilities are just as susceptible to the commission bias as those who are less attuned.

Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive therapy (SOLSTICE): a randomised, open-label phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab has shown efficacy in previous phase 2 studies including patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to investigate first-line trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive treatment.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer, ineligible for full-dose doublet or triplet chemotherapy and curative resection across 25 countries and regions. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab or capecitabine plus bevacizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity using an interactive web response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2), primary tumour location (right vs left colon), and the main reason for not being a candidate for intensive therapy (clinical condition vs non-clinical condition). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to radiological progression or death from any cause, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients having taken at least one dose of the study drug. The trial is ongoing, findings presented here are those of the primary analysis of progression-free survival, conducted after 629 events had occurred. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03869892.

FINDINGS

Between March 21, 2019, and Sept 14, 2020, 856 patients (54% male, 46% female) were randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n=426) or capecitabine plus bevacizumab (n=430). After a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 16·5-17·1), the hazard ratio for progression-free survival for trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab was 0·87 (0·75-1·02; p=0·0464; protocol-defined significance level of p=0·021 not met). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 9·1-10·9) with trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus 9·3 months (8·9-9·8) with capecitabine plus bevacizumab. The most common grade 3 and higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (220 [52%] of 423 patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group vs six [1%] of 427 in the capecitabine plus bevacizumab group), decreased neutrophil count (78 [18%] vs four [<1%]), anaemia (60 [14%] vs 16 [4%]), and hand-foot syndrome (none vs 61 [15%]). Nine deaths (five in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group and four in the capecitabine plus bevacizumab group) were treatment related.

INTERPRETATION

First-line trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab was not superior to capecitabine plus bevacizumab in this population. As expected, the safety profile differed between the two treatments, but there were no new safety concerns. Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab represents a feasible alternative to capecitabine plus bevacizumab in this population.

FUNDING

Servier International Research Institute, Suresnes, France.

Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making

Objective

Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM).

Methods

We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians.

Conclusion

Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes.

Innovation

A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.

Barriers of and strategies for shared decision-making implementation in the care of metastatic breast cancer: A qualitative study among patients and healthcare professionals in an Asian country

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has been shown to improve the quality of life in metastatic breast cancer patients in high-literacy and high-resource settings. However, limited studies have examined the cultural preferences of metastatic breast cancer patients with shared decision-making implementation and the barriers encountered in an Asian setting where societal norms predominate and physician decision-making is at the forefront. This paper aims to identify (1) barriers to practising shared decision-making faced by healthcare professionals and patients and (2) strategies for implementing shared decision-making in the context of metastatic breast cancer management in Malaysia.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, 16 healthcare professionals and 5 policymakers from surgical and oncology departments at public healthcare centres in Malaysia. Semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach. Nvivo software was used to manage and analyse the data.

RESULTS

Five main themes emerged from the study: healthcare provider-patient communication, workforce availability, cultural and belief systems, goals of care and paternalism versus autonomy. Other strategies proposed to overcome barriers to implementing shared decision-making were training of healthcare professionals and empowering nurses to manage patients' psychosocial issues.

CONCLUSION

This study found that practising shared decision-making in the public health sector remains challenging when managing patients with metastatic breast cancer. The utilization of decision-making tools, patient empowerment and healthcare provider training may help address the system and healthcare provider-patient barriers identified in this study.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients were involved in the study design, recruitment and analysis.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Preference Testing in Medical Devices: Current Framework and Regulatory Gaps

Preference testing is a valuable source of information that can be provided by both healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients (users). It can be used to improve the design and development of medical devices by feeding into device usability and, ultimately, risk management. Furthermore, it can aid with selecting the most appropriate clinical endpoints to be used in the clinical evaluation of a device and increase patient engagement by incorporating patient-relevant outcomes. Preference testing is widely conducted in the food industry but is not widespread in the medical field due to limited guidelines and a lack of regulatory framework. As such, manufacturers may be unaware of the benefits of preference testing and fail to take full advantage of it, or conversely, may use inappropriate methodology and/or analyses and consequently fail to collect meaningful data. In this position paper, we aim to highlight the benefits and uses of preference testing, along with potential methods that could be used for preference testing of medical devices. A key step towards the wider implementation of preference testing in medical devices is for the publication of international standards and guidelines for the collection, assessment, and implementation of preference data into the life cycle of a medical device.

Use of the Functional Evaluation of Cardiac Health questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life before and after mitral valve repair in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine changes in health-related quality of life up to 12 months after surgery in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease that undergo mitral valve repair.

ANIMALS

54 dogs that underwent mitral valve repair at a United Kingdom referral hospital.

PROCEDURES

Health-related quality of life was assessed with a previously validated, owner-completed questionnaire before and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

Results

There was a significant decrease in total score (corresponding to reduced negative impact of cardiac disease on quality of life) between the preoperative timepoint and all postoperative timepoints. A significant decrease in total score was also demonstrated between the 1- and 3-month timepoints, but no additional significant changes in total score between adjacent timepoints were identified beyond 3 months after surgery. Significant improvements in individual question scores were found up to 12 months after surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Health-related quality of life was significantly improved following mitral valve repair in dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease and this improvement persisted for up to a year after surgery. These results may be useful when counseling owners of dogs considered candidates for this procedure.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

What Defines Quality of Life for Older Patients Diagnosed with Cancer? A Qualitative Study

Simple Summary

Quality of life has a different meaning for every individual. In older patients with cancer, quality of life is important because anti-cancer treatment may influence their quality of life. In order to assess the aspects of quality of life that matter most to older patients with cancer, we interviewed 63 patients. We used both open-ended questions and asked them to select the most important items from a predefined list: cognition, contact with family or with community, independence, staying in your own home, helping others, having enough energy, emotional well-being, life satisfaction, religion and leisure activities. Physical functioning, social functioning, physical health and cognition are important components of quality of life. In conclusion, maintaining cognition and independence, staying in one’s own home, and maintaining contact with family and community appear to be the most important aspects of quality of life for older patients with cancer. These aspects should be included when making a shared treatment decision.

Abstract

The treatment of cancer can have a significant impact on quality of life in older patients and this needs to be taken into account in decision making. However, quality of life can consist of many different components with varying importance between individuals. We set out to assess how older patients with cancer define quality of life and the components that are most significant to them. This was a single-centre, qualitative interview study. Patients aged 70 years or older with cancer were asked to answer open-ended questions: What makes life worthwhile? What does quality of life mean to you? What could affect your quality of life? Subsequently, they were asked to choose the five most important determinants of quality of life from a predefined list: cognition, contact with family or with community, independence, staying in your own home, helping others, having enough energy, emotional well-being, life satisfaction, religion and leisure activities. Afterwards, answers to the open-ended questions were independently categorized by two authors. The proportion of patients mentioning each category in the open-ended questions were compared to the predefined questions. Overall, 63 patients (median age 76 years) were included. When asked, “What makes life worthwhile?”, patients identified social functioning (86%) most frequently. Moreover, to define quality of life, patients most frequently mentioned categories in the domains of physical functioning (70%) and physical health (48%). Maintaining cognition was mentioned in 17% of the open-ended questions and it was the most commonly chosen option from the list of determinants (72% of respondents). In conclusion, physical functioning, social functioning, physical health and cognition are important components in quality of life. When discussing treatment options, the impact of treatment on these aspects should be taken into consideration.

Navigating the high costs of cancer care: opportunities for patient engagement

Over the past decade, the financial burden of cancer care on patients and their families has garnered increased attention. Many of the potential solutions have focused on system-level interventions such as adopting value-based payment models and negotiating drug prices; less consideration has been given to actions at the patient level to address cancer care costs. We argue that it is imperative to develop and support patient-level strategies that engage patients and consider their preferences, values and individual circumstances. Opportunities to meet these aims and improve the economic experience of patients in oncology are discussed, including: shared decision-making and communication, financial navigation and treatment planning, digital technology and alternative care pathways, and value-based insurance design.

Narrative Approach to Goals of Care Discussions: Adapting the 3-Act Model Training to an Online Format

CONTEXT

The three-Act Model, a narrative approach to goals of care (GOC) discussions centered on patients' individual stories, has proven to be effective as measured by objective skill improvement among medical trainees. This study describes the adaptation of the in-person curriculum to a streamlined, online format, in the setting of the Covid19 pandemic. We hypothesized that high levels of skill proficiency and learner satisfaction observed in previous in-person cohorts would be sustained amongst trainees in the online setting.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary aim was to assess the skills proficiency of a cohort of internal medicine interns undergoing online training for GOC discussions with the three-Act Model. Our secondary goal was to assess learners' satisfaction with the prerecorded didactic video and online role plays.

METHODS

Our team used REDCap for the data collection, and as the user-facing hub for learners to access didactic video content and for submitting surveys. We used Zoom to host synchronous discussions and role-play sessions. Trainers used the previously validated Goals of Care Assessment Tool (GCAT) to objectively rate intern proficiency in two role plays each.

RESULTS

Twenty-one internal medicine interns began the training; 20 completed the training and were assessed using the GCAT. All but one intern who completed the training (19 of 20, 95%) achieved proficiency in leading a GOC discussion as measured objectively using the GCAT. Learner satisfaction was high: 1) 100% of respondents recommended the training to others as a "good" (26.7%) or "outstanding" experience (73.3%); 2) 93.3% were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" using a online, distance-learning format for the prerecorded didactic component; 3) 80% were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" using an online, distance-learning format for the role-play component; and 4) 93.3% were content with the number of role plays. The amount of time dedicated to this training decreased compared to prior years when done in person (six hours) - to four hours and 40 minutes for learners and under four hours for trainers.

CONCLUSION

After completing the adapted online three-Act Model training, nearly all learners were scored to be proficient in GOC communication skills and reported high satisfaction with the online curriculum. Achieving high quality more efficiently represents genuine educational value. Further, these online teaching results show that the three-Act Model training can be delivered to geographically distanced learners.

Impact of health-related quality of life on repeat protocol biopsy compliance on active surveillance for favorable prostate cancer: results from a prospective cohort in the PRIAS-JAPAN study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate how health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is related to repeat protocol biopsy compliance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from a prospective cohort in the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS)-JAPAN study between January 2010 and August 2019. We used the Short Form 8 Health Survey (SF-8), as patient-reported outcomes, to assess HRQOL at AS enrollment and the first year of the protocol. The physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) were calculated from SF-8 questionnaires. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the association of HRQOL at enrollment on the first repeat biopsy compliance. The secondary outcome was the comparison of SF-8 scores during AS, stratified by repeat protocol biopsy compliance.

RESULTS

Of 805 patients who proceeded to the first year of the protocol, the non-compliance rate was 15% (121 patients). In the adjusted model, lower MCS at enrollment was significantly associated with the first repeat protocol biopsy non-compliance (odds ratio [OR], 2.134; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.031-4.42; P = 0.041) but not in lower PCS (OR, 0.667; 95% CI, 0.294-1.514; P = 0.333). All subscales of SF-8 were lower in the non-compliance group than in the compliance group at any point. MCS in the non-compliance group improved over time from the time of AS enrollment (2.34 increased, P = 0.152).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that lower MCS at AS enrollment using patient-reported outcomes was negatively associated with the first repeat protocol biopsy compliance. Our study may support the availability of a simple questionnaire to extract non-compliance.

The Screening and COnsensus Based on Practices and Evidence (SCOPE) Program-Results of a Survey on Daily Practice Patterns for Patients with mCRC

The SCOPE project aimed to better understand practice patterns, identify drivers for treatment goals, and determine third- and fourth-line treatment choices for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The survey was developed by an expert panel of gastrointestinal oncologists. Questions concerned general practice patterns, and treatment decisions for three hypothetical patient case scenarios. Participants had to routinely manage patients with mCRC. We present results from 629 participants who provided input on patient treatment scenarios (data cutoff: 17/01/2020). Prolonging overall survival (OS; 51%) was the main aim in first line. In third line, quality of life (QOL) was the primary goal (34%). Forty-three percent also cited efficacy-focused goals; 18% and 13% noted prolonging OS and improving progression-free survival as main aims, respectively. For fit and active patients, 89% of respondents considered trifluridine-tipiracil an appropriate third-line treatment; regorafenib (31%) or clinical trial enrollment (29%) were the fourth-line options. For patients with comorbidities and limited caregiver support, trifluridine-tipiracil was the preferred third-line treatment (70%). For KRAS-mutated patients with comorbidities and adverse events who received prior oxaliplatin, 90% considered oxaliplatin rechallenge an unsuitable third-line treatment, mainly due to the risk of cumulative toxicity (75%). In the third/fourth-line settings, trifluridine-tipiracil followed by regorafenib was the most common option (54%); 17% chose regorafenib followed by trifluridine-tipiracil. Efficacy coupled with QOL are important goals in third-line treatment. Daily practice patterns reflect the guideline recommendations in third- and fourth-line settings, with a trend toward using trifluridine-tipiracil versus regorafenib in KRAS-wildtype and KRAS-mutant tumors.

Assessing Preferences in Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Phase I and II of Questionnaire Development

Simple Summary

Decision-making is often complex and challenging for head and neck cancer. In respect to the disease trajectory and proposed treatment, the patient expression of preferences can be extremely subjective, ultimately depending on several factors such as age at cancer diagnosis, burden of symptoms, closeness to family and availability of caregivers, psychological well-being, and individual cultural, socioeconomic and religious factors. Developing a specific questionnaire to assess patient preferences may allow fostering a more aware patient-centered approach in multidisciplinary management. Through a standardized process for developing questionnaire modules, a 24-item list was generated, laying the ground for further testing and validation on a large scale.

Abstract

Shared-decision making for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is challenged by the difficulty to integrate the patient perception of value within the framework of a multidisciplinary team approach. The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire to assess the preferences of HNSCC patients with respect to the disease trajectory, expected treatment, and toxicities. In accordance with the standardized EORTC Quality of Life Group’s methodology for the development of quality of life modules, a phase 1–2 study was envisaged. Following a systematic review of the literature, a consolidated list of 28 issues was administered through a semi-structured interview to 111 patients from 7 institutions in 5 countries. Overall, “cure of disease”, “survival”, and “trusting in health care professionals” were the 3 most common priorities, being chosen by 87.3%, 73.6% and 59.1% of patients, respectively. When assessing the correlation with the treatment subgroup, the issue of “being thoroughly and sincerely informed about treatments’ efficacy and survival expectation” was highly prevalent in an independent manner (71.4%, 75% and 90% of patients in the follow-up, palliative and curative subgroups, respectively). Based on prespecified scoring criteria, a 24-item list was generated. Pending clinical applicability, further testing and validation of the questionnaire are warranted.

Adapting care for older cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) COVID-19 Working Group

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a barrier to equal and evidence-based management of cancer in older adults. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) formed a panel of experts to develop consensus recommendations on the implications of the pandemic on several aspects of cancer care in this age group including geriatric assessment (GA), surgery, radiotherapy, systemic treatment, palliative care and research. Age and cancer diagnosis are significant predictors of adverse outcomes of the COVID-19 infection. In this setting, GA is particularly valuable to drive decision-making. GA may aid estimating physiologic reserve and adaptive capability, assessing risk-benefits of either providing or temporarily withholding treatments, and determining patient preferences to help inform treatment decisions. In a resource-constrained setting, geriatric screening tools may be administered remotely to identify patients requiring comprehensive GA. Tele-health is also crucial to ensure adequate continuity of care and minimize the risk of infection exposure. In general, therapeutic decisions should favor the most effective and least invasive approach with the lowest risk of adverse outcomes. In selected cases, this might require deferring or omitting surgery, radiotherapy or systemic treatments especially where benefits are marginal and alternative safe therapeutic options are available. Ongoing research is necessary to expand knowledge of the management of cancer in older adults. However, the pandemic presents a significant barrier and efforts should be made to ensure equitable access to clinical trials and prospective data collection to elucidate the outcomes of COVID-19 in this population.