Computer-based decision making in medicine: A model for surgery of colorectal liver metastases

Decision-making in rectal and colorectal cancer: systematic review and qualitative analysis of surgeons' preferences

Surgeons are experiencing difficulties implementing recommendations not only owing to incomplete, confusing or conflicting information but also to the increasing involvement of patients in decisions relating to their health. This study sought to establish which common factors including heuristic factors guide surgeons' decision-making in colon and rectal cancers. We conducted a systematic literature review of surgeons' decision-making factors related to colon and rectal cancer treatment. Eleven of 349 identified publications were eligible for data analyses. Using the IRaMuTeQ (Interface of R for the Multidimensional Analyses of Texts and Questionnaire), we carried out a qualitative analysis of the significant factors collected in the studies reviewed. Several validation procedures were applied to control the robustness of the findings. Five categories of factors (i.e. patient, surgeon, treatment, tumor and organizational cues) were found to influence surgeons' decision-making. Specifically, all decision criteria including biomedical (e.g. tumor information) and heuristic (e.g. surgeons' dispositional factors) criteria converged towards the factor 'age of patient' in the similarity analysis. In the light of the results, we propose an explanatory model showing the impact of heuristic criteria on medical issues (i.e. diagnosis, prognosis, treatment features, etc.) and thus on decision-making. Finally, the psychosocial complexity involved in decision-making is discussed and a medico-psycho-social grid for use in multidisciplinary meetings is proposed.

Metachronous metastases from colorectal cancer: a population-based study in North-East Netherlands

PURPOSE

The main cause of death of colorectal cancer patients is metastatic disease. Approximately 20-25% of the patients present with metastases at time of diagnosis. The clinical course of patients who develop metachronous metastases, however, is less clear. The aims of this study were to describe the incidence, treatment and survival of patients with metachronous metastases from colorectal cancer and to determine risk factors for developing metachronous metastases.

METHODS

From the Netherlands Cancer Registry, patients diagnosed with colorectal carcinoma in the period 2002-2003 in North-East Netherlands were selected. Patients were followed for 5 years after diagnosis of the primary tumour. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses were used to determine predictors for developing metastases and to analyse overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 333 of 1743 (19%) patients developed metachronous metastases. The majority (83%) of these metastases were diagnosed within 3 years, and the most frequent site was the liver. Patients with advanced stage and patients with tumours in the descending colon or in the rectum were more likely to develop metastases. Approximately 10% of all patients underwent intentionally curative treatment for their metastases, with a 5-year survival rate of 60%. Treatment of metastases and pathologic N (pN) status were independent prognostic factors for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Site and stage of the primary tumour were predictors for developing metachronous metastases. A limited number of patients with metastatic disease were treated with a curative intent. These patients had a good prognosis. Therefore, focus should be on identifying more patients who could benefit from curative treatment.

Multidisciplinary team meeting in digestive oncology: when opinions differ

In daily oncology, Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings are used worldwide to take every main decision. In order to improve the MDT efficiency, an analysis of decision-making process relying on patients refusing to undergo MDT proposal during presentations, in accordance with their referent specialist, was retrospectively performed in an academic and tertiary center, from 1995 to 2010. Out of 1000 patients, 0.5% refused the MDT proposal because of (1) ignorance of current evidence-based literature, (2) heterogeneous interpretations of the technical feasibility, and (3) the MDT undervaluing patient's specificities and wishes. In order to offset the MDT decision, patient needs to come from a well-off and educated background and to get the uttered support of the referent specialist. MDT conclusion is not customized because of interindividual exceptions and technical evaluations. Clinical Nurse Specialists attending to "blind" MDT meetings may help to back oncologic patient's specificities and wishes.

Treating patients with colon cancer liver metastasis: a nationwide analysis of therapeutic decision making

BACKGROUND

Criteria for resectability of colon cancer liver metastases (CLM) are evolving, yet little is known about how physicians choose a therapeutic strategy for potentially resectable CLM.

METHODS

Physicians completed a national Web-based survey that consisted of varied CLM conjoint tasks. Respondents chose among three treatment strategies: immediate liver resection (LR), preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery (C → LR), or palliative chemotherapy (PC). Data were analyzed by multinomial logistic regression, yielding odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Of 219 respondents, 79 % practiced at academic centers and 63 % were in practice ≥10 years. Median number of cases evaluated was four per month. Surgical training varied: 51 % surgical oncology, 44 % hepato-pancreato-biliary/transplantation, 5 % no fellowship. Although each factor affected the choice of CLM therapy, the relative effect differed. Hilar lymph node disease predicted a strong aversion to LR with surgeons more likely to choose C → LR (OR 8.92) or PC (OR 49.9). Solitary lung metastasis also deterred choice of LR, with respondents favoring C → LR (OR 4.43) or PC (OR 6.97). After controlling for clinical factors, surgeons with more years in practice were more likely to choose PC over C → LR (OR 1.94) (P = 0.005). Surgical oncology-trained surgeons were more likely than hepatobiliary/transplant-trained surgeons to choose C → LR (OR 2.53) or PC (OR 4.15) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first nationwide study to define the relative impact of key clinical factors on choice of therapy for CLM. Although clinical factors influence choice of therapy, surgical subspeciality and physician experience are also important determinants of care.

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

BACKGROUND

Liver cancer is both common and burdensome in Asia. Effective liver cancer control, however, is hindered by a complex etiology and a lack of coordination across clinical disciplines. We sought to identify strategies for inclusion in a comprehensive liver cancer control for Asia and to compare qualitative and quantitative methods for prioritization.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews (N = 20) with international liver cancer experts were used to identify strategies using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and to formulate an initial prioritization through frequency analysis. Conjoint analysis, a quantitative stated-preference method, was then applied among Asian liver cancer experts (N = 20) who completed 12 choice tasks that divided these strategies into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets. Respondents' preferred plan was the primary outcome in a choice model, estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistic regression. Priorities were then compared using Spearman's Rho.

RESULTS

Eleven strategies were identified: Access to treatments; Centers of excellence; Clinical education; Measuring social burden; Monitoring of at-risk populations; Multidisciplinary management; National guidelines; Public awareness; Research infrastructure; Risk-assessment and referral; and Transplantation infrastructure. Qualitative frequency analysis indicated that Risk-assessment and referral (85%), National guidelines (80%) and Monitoring of at-risk populations (80%) received the highest priority, while conjoint analysis pointed to Monitoring of at-risk populations (p < 0.001), Centers of excellence (p = 0.002), and Access to treatments (p = 0.004) as priorities, while Risk-assessment and referral was the lowest priority (p = 0.645). We find moderate concordance between the qualitative and quantitative methods (rho = 0.20), albeit insignificant (p = 0.554), and a strong concordance between the OLS and logistic regressions (rho = 0.979; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Identified strategies can be conceptualized as the ABCs of comprehensive liver cancer control as they focus on Antecedents, Better care and Connections within a national strategy. Some concordance was found between the qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g. Monitoring of at-risk populations), but substantial differences were also identified (e.g. qualitative methods gave highest priority to risk-assessment and referral, but it was the lowest for the quantitative methods), which may be attributed to differences between the methods and study populations, and potential framing effects in choice tasks. Continued research will provide more generalizable estimates of priorities and account for variation across stakeholders and countries.

Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Factors that affect the quality of clinical decisions of multidisciplinary cancer teams (MDTs) are not well understood. We reviewed and synthesised the evidence on clinical, social and technological factors that affect the quality of MDT clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched in May 2009. Eligible studies reported original data, quantitative or qualitative. Data were extracted and tabulated by two blinded reviewers, and study quality formally evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included. Study quality was low to medium. Studies assessed quality of care decisions via the effect of MDTs on care management. MDTs changed cancer management by individual physicians in 2-52% of cases. Failure to reach a decision at MDT discussion was found in 27-52% of cases. Decisions could not be implemented in 1-16% of cases. Team decisions are made by physicians, using clinical information. Nursing personnel do not have an active role, and patient preferences are not discussed. Time pressure, excessive caseload, low attendance, poor teamworking and lack of leadership lead to lack of information and deterioration of decision-making. Telemedicine is increasingly used in developed countries, with no detriment to quality of MDT decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Team/social factors affect management decisions by cancer MDTs. Inclusion of time to prepare for MDTs into team-members' job plans, making team and leadership skills training available to team-members, and systematic input from nursing personnel would address some of the current shortcomings. These improvements ought to be considered at national policy level, with the ultimate aim of improving cancer care.

Understanding surgical decision making in early hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

The choice between liver transplantation (LT), liver resection (LR), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as initial therapy for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial, yet little is known about how surgeons choose therapy for individual patients. We sought to quantify the impact of both clinical factors and surgeon specialty on surgical decision making in early HCC by using conjoint analysis.

METHODS

Surgeons with an interest in liver surgery were invited to complete a Web-based survey including 10 case scenarios. Choice of therapy was then analyzed by using regression models that included both clinical factors and surgeon specialty (non-LT v LT).

RESULTS

When assessing early HCC occurrences, non-LT surgeons (50% LR; 41% LT; 9% RFA) made significantly different recommendations compared with LT surgeons (63% LT; 31% LR; 6% RFA; P < .001). Clinical factors, including tumor number and size, type of resection required, and platelet count, had significant effects on the choice between LR, LT, and RFA. After adjusting for clinical factors, non-LT surgeons remained more likely than LT surgeons to choose LR compared with LT (relative risk ratio [RRR], 2.67). When the weight of each clinical factor was allowed to vary by surgeon specialty, the residual independent effect of surgeon specialty on the decision between LR and LT was negligible (RRR, 0.93).

CONCLUSION

The impact of surgeon specialty on choice of therapy for early HCC is stronger than that of some clinical factors. However, the influence of surgeon specialty does not merely reflect an across-the-board preference for one therapy over another. Rather, certain clinical factors are weighed differently by surgeons in different specialties.

Decision making in surgical oncology

Decisions in surgical oncology are increasingly being made by multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs). Although MDTs have been widely accepted as the preferred model for cancer service delivery, the process of decision making has not been well described and there is little evidence pointing to the ideal structure of an MDT. Performance in surgery has been shown to depend on non-technical skills, such as decision making, as well as patient factors and the technical skills of the healthcare team. Application of this systems approach to MDT working allows the identification of factors that affect the quality of decision making for cancer patients. In this article we review the literature on decision making in surgical oncology and by drawing from the systems approach to surgical performance we provide a framework for understanding the process of decision making in MDTs. Technical factors that affect decision making include the information about patients, robust ICT and video-conferencing equipment, a minimum dataset with expert review of radiological and pathological information, implementation and recording of the MDTs decision. Non-technical factors with an impact on decision making include attendance of team members at meetings, leadership, teamwork, open discussion, consensus on decisions and communication with patients and primary care. Optimising these factors will strengthen the decision making process and raise the quality of care for cancer patients.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment

Background:

Guidelines underline the role of individual preferences in the selection of a screening test, as insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening test over another. We conducted a study to determine the preferences of individuals and to predict uptake for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using various screening tests.

Methods:

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was distributed among naive subjects, yet to be screened, and previously screened subjects, aged 50–75 years. Subjects were asked to choose between scenarios on the basis of faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC) with various test-specific screening intervals and mortality reductions, and no screening (opt-out).

Results:

In total, 489 out of 1498 (33%) screening-naïve subjects (52% male; mean age±s.d. 61±7 years) and 545 out of 769 (71%) previously screened subjects (52% male; mean age±s.d. 61±6 years) returned the questionnaire. The type of screening test, screening interval, and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality influenced subjects’ preferences (all P<0.05). Screening-naive and previously screened subjects equally preferred 5-yearly FS and 10-yearly TC (P=0.24; P=0.11), but favoured both strategies to annual FOBT screening (all P-values <0.001) if, based on the literature, realistic risk reduction of CRC-related mortality was applied. Screening-naive and previously screened subjects were willing to undergo a 10-yearly TC instead of a 5-yearly FS to obtain an additional risk reduction of CRC-related mortality of 45% (P<0.001).

Conclusion:

These data provide insight into the extent by which interval and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality affect preferences for CRC screening tests. Assuming realistic test characteristics, subjects in the target population preferred endoscopic screening over FOBT screening, partly, due to the more favourable risk reduction of CRC-related mortality by endoscopy screening. Increasing the knowledge of potential screenees regarding risk reduction by different screening strategies is, therefore, warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations and to optimise informed choice.

Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in health economics commonly present choice sets in an unlabeled form. Labeled choice sets are less abstract and may increase the validity of the results. We empirically compared the feasibility, respondents' trading behavior, and convergent validity between a labeled and an unlabeled DCE for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs in The Netherlands.

METHODS

A labeled DCE version presented CRC screening test alternatives as "fecal occult blood test,""sigmoidoscopy," and "colonoscopy," whereas the unlabeled DCE version presented them as "screening test A" and "screening test B." Questionnaires were sent to participants and nonparticipants in CRC screening.

RESULTS

Total response rate was 276 (39%) out of 712 and 1033 (46%) out of 2267 for unlabeled and labeled DCEs, respectively (P<0.001). The labels played a significant role in individual choices; approximately 22% of subjects had dominant preferences for screening test labels. The convergent validity was modest to low (participants in CRC screening: r=0.54; P=0.01; nonparticipants: r=0.17; P=0.45) largely because of different preferences for screening frequency.

CONCLUSION

This study provides important insights in the feasibility and difference in results from labeled and unlabeled DCEs. The inclusion of labels appeared to play a significant role in individual choices but reduced the attention respondents give to the attributes. As a result, unlabeled DCEs may be more suitable to investigate trade-offs between attributes and for respondents who do not have familiarity with the alternative labels, whereas labeled DCEs may be more suitable to explain real-life choices such as uptake of cancer screening.