Decision aid for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seeking breast reconstruction surgery: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, pilot study

Patient Decision Aids for Breast Cancer Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer to become the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women. There has been a dramatic increase in the use of breast reconstruction after mastectomy. However, struggle in making decisions regarding breast reconstruction has existed. Thus, a study of decision aids (DAs) needs to be conducted, and further studies are needed to promote better DAs. This review discusses how DAs can be used to help women make decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy. In addition, the review was the first to compare different DA formats to determine which one is most effective.

METHODS

The authors searched for relevant studies published before October of 2022 in PubMed and Embase using the medical subject headings "breast reconstruction" and "decision aid." Demographic data and decision, outcomes, and instruments used for assessment were also collected. Risk of bias was measured by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

A network meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with a total of 1401 patients were included. A total of 90.9% participants presented usable results for evaluation of decisional conflict, and web-based DA (-0.3; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.05) showed significant improvement; 50.3% of participants provided results of decisional regret, and no subgroups showed significant reduction; 60.3% of participants contributed to results for knowledge, and web-based DA (0.61; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.21) showed the most positive effect. A total of 44.5% of participants were included for evaluation of satisfaction, and web-based DA (0.44; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72) revealed significant increase.

CONCLUSION

The review concluded that web-based DAs are the favorable format of DA.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

For preference sensitive treatments, such as breast reconstructions, there are barriers to conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary aims of this systematic review were to investigate what type of research questions are explored by RCTs in breast reconstruction, where have they been performed and where have they been published, and to thematise the research questions and thus create an overview of the state of the research field.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials investigating any aspect of breast reconstructions were included. The PubMed database was searched with a pre-defined search string. Inclusion and data abstraction was performed in a pre-defined standardised fashion. For the purpose of this study, we defined key issues as comparison of categories of breast reconstruction and comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, when the thematisation was done.

RESULTS

A total of 419 abstracts were retrieved from the search. Of the 419, 310 were excluded as they were not RCTs concerning some aspect of breast reconstruction, which left us with 110 abstracts to be included in the study. The research questions of the included studies could more or less be divided into seven different themes inclusive of 2 key issues: Other issues - comparison of different categories of breast reconstruction, comparison of immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, surgical details within a category of breast reconstruction, surgical details valid for several categories of breast reconstruction, donor site management, anaesthetics, and non-surgical details. Only five studies compared key issues, and they all illustrate the challenges with RCTs in breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 110 publications based on RCTs in breast reconstruction have been published. Seven themes of research questions could be identified. Only five studies have explored the key issues. Better scientific evidence is needed for the key issues in breast reconstruction, for example by implementing a new study design in the field.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Decision Regret in Plastic Surgery: A Summary

Patient decision regret can occur following elective healthcare decisions. The current era is focused on patient-reported outcomes, and decision regret is another metric by which surgeons can and should measure postoperative results. Patients who experience decision regret after elective procedures can often blame themselves, the surgeon, or the clinical practice, and this can lead to downstream psychological and economic consequences for all parties involved.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed using the following search terms: (aesthetic surgery) AND (decision regret), (rhinoplasty) AND (decision regret), (face-lift) AND (decision regret), (abdominoplasty) AND (decision regret), (breast augmentation) AND (decision regret), (breast reconstruction) AND (decision regret), (FACE-Q) AND (rhinoplasty), (BREAST-Q) AND (breast augmentation). The following article types were included in the search: randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews.

Results

After review of the literature, preoperative education, decisional tools, and postoperative complications were found to be the most important factors affecting decision regret after surgery.

Conclusions

A better understanding of the factors associated with decision regret can help surgeons provide more effective preoperative counseling and prevent postoperative decision regret. Plastic surgeons can use these tools within a context of shared decision-making and ultimately increase patient satisfaction. Decision regret for plastic surgical procedures was mainly in the context of breast reconstruction. The differences in medical necessity create unique psychological challenges, emphasizing the need for more studies and a better understanding of the topic for other elective and cosmetic surgery procedures.

Effects of decision aids on breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the effects of decision aids for women facing breast reconstruction decision on decision conflict, decision regret, knowledge, satisfaction, anxiety and depression.

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction decision is not good or bad and should be guided by clinical evidence and patient preferences. Decision aids can increase the patient's decision-making enthusiasm and ability, improve the quality of decision and promote shared decision-making between patients and medical staff.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Eight databases were conducted from the establishment of the database until October 2021. The PRISMA checklist was selected for analysis in this paper. The meta-analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.3. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The result is decision conflict, decision regret, knowledge and other secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of twelve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that decision aids could significantly reduce decision conflict and decision regret, improve knowledge, satisfaction and depression and had no influence on anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed the positive effect of decision aids on the decision-making of women facing postmastectomy breast reconstruction. In the future, more well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm the effects of decision aids on the decision-making of breast reconstruction and nurses should be encouraged to take part in the development of decision aids in accordance with strict standards and apply them to breast cancer patients considering postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Our study provides evidence for the effectiveness of decision aids on breast reconstruction and points to the important role of healthcare providers in the use of decision aids and in facilitating shared decision-making.

Invited Discussion on: The Impact of Reconstructive Modality and Postoperative Complications on Decision Regret and Patient-Reported Outcomes following Breast Reconstruction

One in eight women will have a lifetime diagnosis of confirmed breast cancer, and one in three of these women will undergo a mastectomy. About half of women undergoing mastectomies will opt for some type of breast reconstruction. Breast cancer itself and breast reconstruction bring physical changes that are accompanied by psychological changes of varying degrees. The decision process about cancer treatment and whether or not to perform breast reconstruction brings suffering. In the case of choosing to perform the reconstruction, deciding when to perform it and which surgical technique to choose from among several available is quite complex, and may result in regret. The author provides a brief literature review on this subject and comments on the work carried out by Cai and Momeni, comparing data and results.Level of Evidence V This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

A scoping review of interactive and personalized web-based clinical tools to support treatment decision making in breast cancer

The increasing attention on personalized breast cancer care has resulted in an explosion of new interactive, tailored, web-based clinical decision tools for guiding treatment decisions in clinical practice. The goal of this study was to review, compare, and discuss the clinical implications of current tools, and highlight future directions for tools aiming to improve personalized breast cancer care. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify web-based decision tools addressing breast cancer treatment decisions. There was a total of 17 articles associated with 21 unique tools supporting decisions related to surgery, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, bisphosphonates, HER2-targeted therapy, and chemotherapy. The quality of the tools was assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument. Overall, the tools considered clinical (e.g., age) and tumor characteristics (e.g., grade) to provide personalized outcomes (e.g., survival) associated with various treatment options. Fewer tools provided the adverse effects of the selected treatment. Only one tool was field-tested with patients, and none were tested with healthcare providers. Future studies need to assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, as well as the effects of personalized web-based decision tools on communication and decision making from the patient and clinician perspectives.