Patient Preferences in Treatment Choices for Early-Stage Lung Cancer

Patient Preferences for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Importance

Up to 40% of women experience dissatisfaction after breast reconstruction due to unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with personal preferences. Identifying what attributes patients value when considering surgery could improve shared decision-making. Adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis can elicit individual-level treatment preferences.

Objectives

To identify which attributes of breast reconstruction are most important to women considering surgery and to describe how these attributes differ by those who prefer flap vs implant reconstruction.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, at Duke University and between June 1 and December 31, 2022, through the Love Research Army with ACBC analysis. Participants were 105 women at Duke University with a new diagnosis of or genetic predisposition to breast cancer who were considering mastectomy with reconstruction and 301 women with a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition as identified through the Love Research Army registry.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Relative importance scores, part-worth utility values, and maximum acceptable risks were estimated.

Results

Overall, 406 women (105 from Duke University [mean (SD) age, 46.3 (10.5) years] and 301 from the Love Research Army registry [mean (SD) age, 59.2 (11.9) years]) participated. The attribute considered most important was the risk of abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] relative importance [RI], 28% [11%]), followed by chance of major complications (RI, 25% [10%]), number of additional operations (RI, 23% [12%]), appearance of the breasts (RI, 13% [12%]), and recovery time (RI, 11% [7%]). Most participants (344 [85%]) preferred implant-based reconstruction; these participants cared most about abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] RI, 30% [11%]), followed by the risk of complications (mean [SD], RI, 26% [11%]) and additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 21% [12%]). In contrast, participants who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 31% [15%]), appearance of the breasts (mean [SD] RI, 27% [16%]), and risk of complications (mean [SD] RI, 18% [6%]). Factors independently associated with choosing flap reconstruction included being married (odds ratio [OR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.04-5.08]; P = .04) and higher educational level (college education; OR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.01-5.86]; P = .048), while having an income level of greater than $75 000 was associated with a decreased likelihood of choosing the flap profile (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.97]; P = .01). Respondents who preferred flap appearance were willing to accept a mean (SD) increase of 14.9% (2.2%) chance of abdominal morbidity (n = 113) or 6.4% (4.8%) chance of complications (n = 115).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction. Future studies should assess how decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences can help tailor patient-physician discussions to focus preoperative counseling on factors that matter most to each patient and ultimately improve patient-centered care.

Changes in the pulmonary function of CT-guided microwave ablation for patients with malignant lung tumors

PURPOSE

To investigate the changes in pulmonary function after computed tomography (CT)-guided microwave ablation (MWA) in patients with a malignant lung tumor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2020 to January 2022, 133 patients with a malignant lung tumor who underwent CT-guided percutaneous MWA were included in the study. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed before (the baseline) and 1 month after the MWA. Vital capacity (VC), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), FEV1%, maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMEF), and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO-SB) at 1 month post MWA were compared with that at the baseline. The time of procedure and post-procedure length of hospital stay were also recorded.

RESULTS

The mean VC, FVC, FEV1, FEV1%, MMEF, and DLCO-SB at the baseline and 1 month post MWA were 3.23 ± 0.75 and 3.22 ± 0.77 (P = 0.926), 3.20 ± 0.75 and 3.21 ± 0.77 (P = 0.702), 2.35 ± 0.70 and 2.35 ± 0.71 (P = 0.992), 91.97 ± 23.14 and 91.87 ± 23.16 (P = 0.837), 1.83 ± 0.93 and 1.81 ± 0.95 (P = 0.476), and 6.38 ± 1.67 and 6.32 ± 1.62 (P = 0.389), respectively. There was no significant difference in the PFT results before and 1 month post MWA. The mean time of procedure and post-MWA length of hospital stay were 33 min and 2.5 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

MWA is a lung parenchyma-sparing local treatment, and pulmonary function at 1 month post MWA was not statistically different from the baseline, indicating that MWA may not affect pulmonary function.

Trends in medical care utilization in patients with cancer: An analysis of real-world data in a tertiary hospital in Korea, 2014-2019

BACKGROUND

Rising costs of cancer treatments challenge even areas with universal health coverage. There's a need to assess current medical care utilization trends among patients with cancer to guide public health policy, resource allocation, and set informed healthcare goals.

METHODS

We analyzed the latest trends in medical care utilization by cancer patients in four areas-drugs, radiation therapy (RT), surgery, and diagnostic procedures-using clinical databases extracted from electronic medical records of a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2014 and 2019. Compound adjusted growth rates (CAGR) were computed to capture the annual growth over the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 74,285 cancer patients were identified, with 40.3% (29,962), 14.2% (10,577), 31.1% (23,066), and 92.6% (68,849) of patients having received at least one anticancer agent, RT, surgery, and diagnostic procedure, respectively, over the period. We observed a 1.7-fold increase in the use of targeted · immune-oncology agents (from 6.8% to 11.6%) and a 21-fold increase (from 3.0% in 2014 to 65.7%) in intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) use over the period. In contrast, we observed a continuous decrease in the proportion of patients who underwent surgical treatment from 12.2% in 2014 to 10.9% in 2019. This decrease was particularly noticeable in patients with colon cancer (from 28.5% to 24.2%) and liver cancer (from 4.1% to 2.9%).

CONCLUSION

From 2014 to 2019, there was a significant rise in the use of targeted · immune-oncology agents and IMRT, alongside a decline in surgeries. While targeted · immune-oncology agents and IMRT may offer promising outcomes, their financial impact and potential for overuse necessitate careful oversight and long-term cost-effectiveness studies.

Identification of Relevant Attributes for Liver Cancer Therapies (IRALCT): a maximum-difference-scaling analysis

The Identification of Relevant Attributes for Liver Cancer Therapies (IRALCT) project is intended to provide new insights into the relevant utility attributes regarding therapy choices for malignant primary and secondary liver tumors from the perspective of those who are involved in the decision-making process. It addresses the potential value of taking patients' expectations and preferences into account during the decision-making and, when possible, adapting therapies according to these preferences. Specifically, it is intended to identify the relevant clinical attributes that influence the patients', medical laymen's, and medical professionals' decisions and compare the three groups' preferences. We conducted maximum difference (MaxDiff) scaling among 261 participants (75 physicians, 97 patients with hepatic malignancies, and 89 medical laymen) to rank the importance of 14 attributes previously identified through a literature review. We evaluated the MaxDiff data using count analysis and hierarchical Bayes estimation (HB). Physicians, patients, and medical laymen assessed the same 7 attributes as the most important: probability (certainty) of a complete removal of the tumor, probability of reoccurrence of the disease, pathological evidence of tumor removal, possible complications during the medical intervention, welfare after the medical intervention, duration and intensity of the pain, and degree of difficulty of the medical intervention. The cumulative relative importance of these 7 attributes was 88.3%. Our results show that the physicians', patients', and medical laymen's preferences were very similar and stable.Trial registration DRKS-ID of the study: DRKS00013304, Date of Registration in DRKS: 2017/11/16.

Psychological states regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Understanding the anxieties and emotions of patients with lung cancer before and after radical surgery is crucial in the decision to undergo postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the psychological states and changes associated with adjuvant chemotherapy during perioperative periods in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remain unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants with a self-reported diagnosis of pathological stage II or III NSCLC who underwent complete surgical resection and received information on postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 101) were sampled from an online panel in Japan from October 9 to November 19, 2020. Eligible and consenting participants completed a self-administered online questionnaire survey about their disease, and their psychological states were assessed.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (39, 38.6%) were 60-69 years of age, and 87 (86.1%) were men. A total of 59 (58.4%) and 42 (41.6%) patients had pathological stages II and III, respectively. Regardless of the situation, more than 75% of the patients were anxious about the possibility of recurrence after complete surgical resection for lung cancer. Approximately 70% of respondents selected the option of "I will get adjuvant chemotherapy" on any precondition. Among them, almost all respondents selected the option "want to do everything I can do now to prevent recurrence."

CONCLUSION

In this small sample of respondents with NSCLC from Japan, it is important for surgeons and physicians to explain the condition and corresponding therapy for lung cancer, while considering the possibility of recurrence in any situation, even before surgery as a curative intent.

Understanding the lived experience of lung cancer: a European social media listening study

Background

Social media platforms are increasingly being used by stakeholders to generate, access, and share health-related information and experiences. Lung cancer is the most common cancer, impacting > 2 million patients globally. This observational study utilized a social listening approach to analyze social media trends and gain insights into stakeholder perceptions of lung cancer.

Methods

This social media study retrospectively collated data from open access blogs, forums, and social networking sites. Social media posts were collected between June 2019–May 2020 from 14 European countries. Using social media aggregator tools, posts comprising lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer-specific terms were extracted. Manual and automated relevancy algorithms filtered the extracted information to provide the relevant dataset. This contextualized dataset was further mined to generate the final data for analysis.

Results

Of 1360 conversations analyzed, 42% were generated by patients/caregivers and 14% by healthcare professionals (HCPs). A majority of patients were 51–70 years old (approximately 50%) and 91% (n = 500/550) had late-stage cancer. Treatment (35%) and disease awareness (30%) were among the most discussed topic of the patient journey. Although the overall treatment sentiment was neutral, chemotherapy was the treatment type with the highest associated negative sentiment (28%); fewer negative sentiments were associated with immunotherapy (9%) and targeted therapy (2%), due to perceptions of longer survival outcomes and fewer side effects. In conversations that discussed clinical endpoints, “survivability” and “overall survival” (47 and 30%, respectively; n = 539) were most frequently mentioned by stakeholders. HCPs mostly used technical terms, whereas patients and caregivers used colloquial terms such as “getting rid of cancer”. Emotional wellness was identified to have a huge impact on quality of life in lung cancer. Delay or treatment cancellations due to COVID-19, lack of effective treatments and funding, and lack of empathy by physicians emerged as the key unmet needs among patients/caregivers.

Conclusions

Social listening proved to be an effective tool to explore stakeholders’ perceptions and their key unmet needs, typically not available in published literature or databases, and provides HCPs with valuable insights into the distress, doubts, and needs of lung cancer patients and caregivers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09505-4.

National Utilization, Survival, and Costs Analysis of Treatment Options for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A SEER-Medicare Database Analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare utilization, outcomes, and costs of surgery, radiation therapy, and percutaneous ablation for the treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using 2006-2016 Medicare-linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases, stage I NSCLC patients who underwent surgery, radiotherapy, or percutaneous ablation were identified using relevant billing codes. National utilization rates were determined. Overall survival for treatment arms were compared using log-rank test and Cox-proportional hazard modeling. Mean direct costs for each treatment strategy during the first year after diagnosis were compared using Analysis of Variance.

RESULTS

A total of 15,847 Stage I NSCLC patients were identified; mean age at diagnosis was 75.5 years (minimum age = 66 years) and 59.2% were female. A total of 10,732 patients (67.7%) underwent only surgery, 5013 (31.6%) only radiotherapy, and 102 (0.6%) only ablation. Utilization of surgery and ablation decreased while radiotherapy utilization increased from 2007 to 2015 (p < 0.0001). Compared to the ablation group, overall survival was greater for the surgery group (HR: 0.7, 95% CI of HR: 0.6-0.9, p = 0.0047) and lower for the radiotherapy group (HR: 1.4, 95% CI of HR: 1.1-1.8, p = 0.002). The mean first year cost of therapy for ablation = $11,976) was significantly less (p < 0.05) than for radiotherapy ($15,447) and surgery ($22,669).

CONCLUSION

In Medicare patients with stage I NSCLC, the utilization of radiation therapy has increased and surgery has declined, while utilization of percutaneous ablation has remained uniformly low. Although overall survival is best for surgery, then ablation, and then radiation therapy, first year treatment costs are lowest for ablation.

Evaluating Treatment Preferences and Perceptions of a Prosthetic Versus a Transplanted Hand: A Conjoint Analysis-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

This study used a conjoint analysis-based survey to assess which factors are most influential when considering treatment with a prosthesis or transplant after a unilateral hand amputation.

METHODS

Overall, 469 respondents were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk and asked to assume that they experienced a hand amputation. To determine preferences for a prosthetic, respondents chose among 11 pairs of alternatives with variations in the following attributes: appearance, function, maintenance, and learning time. Respondents were then presented with descriptions of the risks and outcomes of hand transplantation. The most compelling reasons for and against a transplant were determined and characteristics predictive of support for a transplant were identified.

RESULTS

The most important attributes for a prosthesis were "lifelike appearance" and "myolectric function." For hand transplantation, respondents were most concerned about immunosuppression side effects (n = 323, 69%) and the intense nature of surgery (n = 275, 59%), whereas the most positive benefit was the concept of the transplant being "natural" (n = 339, 72%). When faced with the choice of a hand transplant or a prosthetic, approximately 50% of respondents chose a transplantation. Younger age, previous medical experiences, a perceived "familiarity with medical issues," and the regular attendance of religious services were associated with strong support for a hand transplantation (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

When considering a hand prosthesis, respondents are motivated most by appearance and function. Meanwhile, with hand transplantation, the risks of immunosuppression and the intense nature of surgery and recovery are predominant concerns. These findings may help inform patient-physician discussions when considering treatment after unilateral hand amputation.

Quantitative Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment from the Patients' Perspective: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Regulatory agencies as well as private organizations pursue programs that advocate patient centricity and emphasize the importance of dialog with patients. Various methods are applied to elicit the preferences of patients regarding the aspects of treatment they lend more importance to. Decisions on treatment choices are critical to patients with lung cancer because of their poor prognosis and the serious trade-off between safety and efficacy in traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of quantitative patient preference studies of patients with lung cancer. Our exhaustive search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PLOS, and SpringerLink identified 15 relevant studies published from January 2000 to April 2020 that enabled us to assess the relative importance of treatment attributes according to lung cancer patients' perspective.

RESULTS

The literature review revealed that patients with lung cancer tend to place a higher weight on efficacy and quality of life (QoL) attributes than on other attributes. Overall survival was found to be the most important among the efficacy attributes. The consequences of adverse events seemed less important than the possible efficacy from therapies. The clinical utility of treatment, such as the route of administration, was generally not considered important. It remains inconclusive whether sociodemographic factors and/or medical history affect the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review clarified that patients generally prefer a better efficacy profile to a better safety profile, which underscores the importance of improved benefits in anti-lung cancer drug development.

Differences in Lung Cancer Treatment Preferences Among Oncologists, Patients and Family Members: A Semi-Structured Qualitative Study in China

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment decision-making often needs to balance benefits, harms, and costs. This study sought to identify the differences in cancer treatment preference among oncologists, patients and their family members in China.

METHODS

A semi-structured face-to-face qualitative interview was conducted among oncologists, patients and their family members recruited in four tertiary hospitals in China. The interview guide was developed based on literature review and expert consultation. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences when making lung cancer treatment decisions. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analyzed. The preferences were compared among three groups of participants.

RESULTS

A total of 17 participants (5 oncologists, 6 dyads of patients and family members) were interviewed between June and July 2019. Five themes, namely, survival benefit, adverse effect/symptom, treatment process, treatment cost, and the impact on daily life were identified. The oncologists and family members gave highest priority on survival benefit, while the patients are concerned most about treatment cost and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals different preferences for cancer treatment among oncologists, patients and their family members in China. Education is needed to empower patients and family members and promote share decision-making in this country.

Long-Term Care Resident Awareness and Interest in Spasticity Treatments

Spasticity is common in long-term care settings (affecting up to one in three residents), yet it remains under-treated despite safe and effective, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapies. One barrier to treatment may be lack of awareness of available therapies for long-term care residents living with spasticity. A standardized spasticity treatment awareness and interest interview was conducted with 18 nursing home residents and 11 veterans’ home residents in this cross-sectional study. Veterans’ home residents were also asked about potential barriers to receiving spasticity treatment. Many residents across both long-term care facilities were unaware of most of the treatment options for spasticity. Participants were most aware of physical/occupational therapy (83%, 95% CI: 65–93%) and least aware of intrathecal baclofen (21%, 95% CI: 9–39%). After learning about treatments, only 7% of participants (95% CI: 0–23%) were not interested in receiving any form of spasticity treatment. Among residents previously unaware of spasticity treatments, at least one quarter became interested in receiving treatment and at least one-fifth indicated possibly being interested in the treatment after learning about it. Potential barriers to receiving treatment included traveling to see a doctor and limited knowledge of insurance coverage of spasticity treatments. These results suggest that patient-centered approaches, including education and discerning patient preferences, may improve spasticity treatment in long-term care settings.

Shared decision-making in early stage non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend that patients and professionals make shared decisions between surgery and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) when treating early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Variation by centre suggests treatment decisions may be disproportionately influenced by clinician judgment and treatment availability rather than patient preference. This systematic review critically evaluates studies of patient and clinician preferences for treatment of early stage NSCLC.

METHODS

Primary empirical research up to 30 April 2020 was identified from searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases. Data extracted included: study characteristics and methods, preferences for NSCLC treatment and involvement in decision-making and risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using descriptive data and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

23 studies were included in the review; 18 measured patient preferences, 4 clinician preferences and 1 both clinician and patient preferences. Patients and clinicians were both most likely to prefer a collaborative role in treatment decisions. Most patients did not recall there being a choice between surgery or SABR options, and thus experienced minimal decisional conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

For professionals to support patients in making informed, value based decisions about NSCLC treatments, better quality evidence is needed of the clinical and quality of life trade offs for both surgery and SABR.

Empowering patients in decision-making in radiation oncology - can we do better?

The decision as to whether or not a patient should receive radiation therapy as part of their cancer treatment is based on evidence‐based practice and on recommended international consensus treatment guidelines. However, the merit of involving the patients' individual preferences and values in the treatment decision is frequently overlooked. Here, we review the current literature pertaining to shared decision‐making (SDM) in the field of radiation oncology, including discussion of the patient's perception of radiation therapy as a treatment option and patient involvement in clinical trials. The merit of decision aids during the SDM process in radiation oncology is considered, as are patient preferences for active or passive involvement in decisions about their treatment. Clarity of terminology, a better understanding of effective strategies and increased resources will be needed to ensure SDM in radiation oncology becomes a reality.

Questionnaire survey comparing surgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer: lessons from patients with experience of both modalities

Background

Currently, there is some controversy regarding indications for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer patients. We investigated the treatment preferences of patients with experience of both surgery and SBRT using a questionnaire survey.

Methods

Of lung cancer patients treated with SBRT between 2005 and 2017, we identified those who also previously underwent surgery for lung cancer. These patients were asked about their experiences of surgery and SBRT including perceived condition, distress, stress, convenience, adverse effects, and satisfaction during and after treatment. Participants were also asked about treatment decision-making for hypothetical scenarios.

Results

Of 653 lung cancer patients treated with SBRT, 149 also underwent surgery for lung cancer, 52 of whom participated in this questionnaire. The median age at the time of this survey was 76 years (range, 59-91 years). Significantly more participants had a favorable impression of SBRT during and after treatment (all question items; P<0.01). In terms of overall satisfaction, 27 patients preferred SBRT and three patients preferred surgery. In a hypothetical scenario (equivalent treatment outcomes) aged 70 years and faced with decision-making for first-time lung cancer treatment, significantly more patients selected SBRT (P<0.01): 38 patients selected SBRT. In a scenario with 20% better survivals for surgical resection, 14 patients selected SBRT, 12 selected surgery, and 26 were indecisive (P=0.47). In a scenario at age 80 years, significantly more patients selected SBRT (P<0.01).

Conclusions

Most patients with experience of both surgery and SBRT for lung cancer prefer SBRT. This information would be helpful at treatment decision-making.

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Background

There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is “not too much worse” than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity.

Methods

We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (p_S) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (p_A). The non-inferiority margin, p_A – p_S = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal.

Results

Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies.

Conclusions

The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.

Conjoint Analysis of Treatment Preferences for Nondisplaced Scaphoid Fractures

PURPOSE

We used conjoint analysis to assess the relative importance of factors that influence a patient's decision between surgical or nonsurgical management of a nondisplaced scaphoid fracture. Our hypothesis was that out-of-pocket costs will have a greater influence on decision making than the time spent in a cast or brace, degree of soreness, or the risk of treatment failure.

METHODS

Two-hundred and fifty participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk and asked to assume that they had experienced a nondisplaced scaphoid waist fracture. They then indicated their relative preferences among 13 pairs of alternatives with variations in the following attributes: time in a cast, time in a brace, duration of ongoing soreness, risk of treatment failure (by which we meant scaphoid nonunion), out-of-pocket costs based on estimates of direct costs ($500-2,500), and apprehension about surgery. A conjoint analysis was used to determine the relative importance of these factors when choosing between surgical or nonsurgical management.

RESULTS

The factor with the greatest influence on treatment choice was the cost of the procedure. After assessing the respondent's apprehension to undergo surgery, a sensitivity analysis showed the proportion of respondents who would choose surgery given different outcomes. To make the predicted share of those who are "not worried" about surgery equal to those who are "somewhat worried" or "a little worried" would require that the cost of surgery increase by $2,700. In addition, 2 weeks in a cast, 3 weeks in a brace, 2 months of soreness, or a 2% increase in the risk of fracture nonunion generates the same surgical choice probability as a $2,000 increase in the out-of-pocket cost of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

As conceptualized in this conjoint analysis, out-of-pocket costs and apprehension about surgery seem to have a greater impact on a decision for surgery than the time spent in a brace or cast and the risk of treatment failure.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and decision analysis III.

Oncologic Equivalence of Minimally Invasive Lobectomy: The Scientific and Practical Arguments

BACKGROUND

Despite the slow adoption of minimally invasive lobectomy (MIL), it is now a preferred approach for early lung cancer. Nevertheless, ongoing concerns about MIL oncologic effectiveness has led to calls for prospective, randomized trials.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of on-line databases, collected readings, and other scholarly experiences of the experienced authors were used to construct this review. All available reports that contained long-term survival comparisons for open versus MIL were tabulated.

RESULTS

The preponderance of limited randomized and numerous large propensity-matched database analyses indicate equivalent or improved long-term MIL survival for early-stage disease. MIL lymph node dissection quality has been challenged; however, this was attributed to MIL avoidance of central tumors in early reports. Although technical inadequacies for MIL should be amplified for advanced cancer resections, early reports show no such concern. In fact, for special populations such as older, frail patients, evidence is much stronger that MIL confers a survival advantage.

CONCLUSIONS

MIL is an oncologically equivalent operation with substantially less morbidity, especially in frail populations. It is reasonable to suggest that MIL should be the technique of choice, even a quality indicator, for lobectomy.

A systematic review of questionnaires about patient's values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient's values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient's values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires' construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient's preferences and values.

RESULTS

A total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding "validity", seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash's α values of 0.74-0.87. For "acceptability", the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient's preferences and values showed that the "effectiveness" domain was the most considered item in the patient's value questionnaire followed by "safety", "prognosis", and others, whereas the least considered domain was "physician's experience".

CONCLUSION

Only a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient's preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient's preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient's preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient's preferences and values.

Practice Patterns and Outcomes in Elderly Stage I Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: A 2004 to 2012 SEER Analysis

BACKGROUND

We reviewed the population-based treatment patterns and outcomes for elderly patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated from 2004 to 2012.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we identified biopsy-proven stage I NSCLC cases diagnosed from 2004 to 2012. The patients were divided into 5-year age subsets (60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, and ≥ 90 years). The demographic data, therapy, and survival were compared by year. Trends in overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and practice patterns were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 62,213 cases were identified. The use of surgery declined sharply with age. Patients aged 60 to 64 years had a surgical rate of 81% compared with 21% for those aged ≥ 90 years (P < .0001). Radiation use increased (from 11% to 39%; P < .0001), as did the receipt of neither surgery nor radiation (from 7% to 40%; P < .0001). When analyzing the annual trends, radiation use increased, with fewer patients forgoing treatment from 2004 to 2012 (P < .0001). From 2004 to 2011, CSS at 2 years improved significantly for patients treated with radiation alone (from 48% to 72%; P < .0001) and more subtly for those receiving surgery alone (from 87% to 91%; P < .0001). The outcomes were stable for those receiving neither surgery nor radiation (38% to 45%; P = NS). Surgical outcomes declined with advancing age (P < .0001); however, the radiation outcomes did not (P = NS).

CONCLUSION

With advancing age, radiation replaces surgery as the most used treatment for early-stage NSCLC. OS and CSS have improved significantly for elderly stage I NSCLC patients treated with radiation alone during a timeline concurrent with the widespread adoption of stereotactic body radiation therapy. Dedicated prospective studies are indicated, because these findings are limited by the inherent biases of using the SEER database alone.