Probabilities of benefit and harms of preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: What do radiation oncologists tell and what do patients understand?

In risk we trust? Making decisions about knee replacement

Risk communication is a key legal and ethical component of shared decision-making. Decisions about total knee replacement, a common surgery, must contend with the fact that a minority of cases result in unintended outcomes, some of which have devastating effects. To understand how risks are communicated during decision-making, we audio-recorded and analysed 62 consultations between surgeons and patients. Various communication methods were evident, including listing risks without elaboration, discussing them in a conversational manner, abrogating discussion of risk, or using decision-tools. Discussion of risks was often brief in nature, and risk communication was sometimes curtailed or deferred by both patients and surgeons. Risks could also be observed to play a part in reinforcing policy norms of the doctor-patient relationship that highlighted patient responsibility. Nevertheless, patients and surgeons in the observed consultations appeared more interested in developing trusting relationships than in discussing risks. Because patients had sometimes experienced considerable deterioration in their knee function before their consultation, were in pain and struggled with mobility, the realities of clinical practice clashed with the policy norms of choice and patient responsibility. Rather, decisions could appear coerced by the disease process rather than being clear-cut examples of self-determination. While policy norms putatively use risk disclosure to frame communication between patients and clinicians as a transaction between customer and technician, the lack of conformity to these norms in the consultations may indicate resistance to this framing. A greater emphasis on determining positive roles for trust and care would help policy to present a nuanced understanding of decision-making. Risk communication could be seen as a factor in the formation of trusting relationships, improving its role in decision-making processes while recognising its inherent tensions with practice.

Surgeon's steering behaviour towards patients to participate in a cluster randomised trial on active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised trial. The aim of this study is to assess if and how surgeons use steering behaviour in their information provision to patients in their choice to participate in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial investigating an organ sparing treatment in (curable) oesophageal cancer (SANO trial).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study was performed. Thematic content analysis was applied to audiotaped and transcribed consultations of twenty patients with eight different oncological surgeons in three Dutch hospitals. Patients could choose to participate in a clinical trial in which an experimental treatment of 'active surveillance' (AS) was offered. Patients who did not want to participate underwent standard treatment: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

Surgeons used various techniques to steer patients towards one of the two options, mostly towards AS. The presentation of pros and cons of treatment options was imbalanced: positive framing of AS was used to steer patients towards the choice for AS, and negative framing of AS to make the choice for surgery more attractive. Further, steering language, i.e. suggestive language, was used, and surgeons seemed to use the timing of the introduction of the different treatment options, to put more focus on one of the treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of steering behaviour can help to guide physicians in more objectively informing patients on participation in future clinical trials.

Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?

BACKGROUND

The increased availability of patient reported outcome data makes it feasible to provide patients tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects. However, it is unclear how such information influences patients' risk interpretations compared to generic population-based risks, and which message format should be used to communicate such individualized statistics.

METHODS

A web-based experiment was conducted in which participants (n = 141) read a hypothetical treatment decision-making scenario about four side effect risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. Participants were cancer patients or survivors who were recruited from an online Dutch cancer patient panel. All participants received two tailored risks (of which the reference class was based on their age, gender and tumor stage) and two generic risks conveying the likelihood of experiencing the side effects. The risks were presented either in words-only ('common' and 'very common'), or in a combination of words and corresponding numerical estimates ('common, 10 out of 100' and 'very common, 40 out of 100'). Participants' estimation of the probability, accuracy of their estimation, and perceived likelihood of occurrence were primary outcomes. Perceived personal relevance and perceived uncertainty were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Tailored risks were estimated as higher and less accurate than generic risks, but only when they were presented in words; Such differences were not found in the verbal and numerical combined condition. Although tailoring risks did not impact participants' perceived likelihood of occurrence, tailored risks were perceived as more personally relevant than generic risks in both message formats. Finally, tailored risks were perceived as less uncertain than generic risks, but only in the verbal-only condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering current interest in the use of personalized decision aids for improving shared decision-making in oncology, it is important that clinicians consider how tailored risks of treatment side effects should be communicated to patients. We recommend both clinicians who communicate probability information during consultations, and decision aid developers, that verbal descriptors of tailored risks should be supported by numerical estimates of risks levels, to avoid overestimation of risks.

Preparing Patients for Sexual Dysfunction After Radiation for Anorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Successful multimodality treatment of anorectal cancers has led to increased numbers of survivors who experience permanent, life-changing side effects of treatment. Little is known about sexual dysfunction (SD) in this population. The etiology of SD after anorectal cancer treatment is complex and multifactorial. However, pelvic radiation plays a significant negative role in anatomic, hormonal, and physiological aspects of sexual function.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Information was organized by key concepts useful for patient education, including (1) rates of SD after pelvic radiation for rectal cancer, (2) rates of SD after pelvic radiation for anal cancer, (3) mechanisms of SD and methods to reduce rates of SD, and (4) issues and opportunities related to patient education and discussion of SD after pelvic radiation.

RESULTS

SD after pelvic radiation for anorectal cancers is common in both men and women. Higher radiation doses may increase the risk for vaginal stenosis; however, it is unclear whether there are similar dose-volume relationships for men. Vaginal dilators and advanced radiation techniques can reduce the radiation dose to sexual organs at risk. Improvement is needed regarding counseling and education of patients about SD.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides information from previously published studies that clinicians may use in their discussions with patients embarking on pelvic radiation for anorectal cancers. More modern, standardized, and complete data are needed to quantify the risk of SD after treatment. Some methods of sexual toxicity reduction have been studied, but further study into interventions aimed at treating postradiation sexual function are needed.

Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods

PURPOSE

Cancer patients are increasingly involved in decision-making processes. Hence, clinicians need to inform patients about the risks and benefits of different treatment options in order for patients to make well informed decisions. The aim of this review is to determine the effects of methods of communicating prognostic information about (1) disease progression (survival, progression, recurrence and remission), (2) side effects and complications and (3) health-related quality of life (HRQL) on cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes in cancer patients.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to select articles that were published up to  November 2019 and that examined verbal and/or visual risk communication interventions in an oncological clinical setting.

RESULTS

The search yielded 14,875 studies; 28 studies were ultimately included. For disease progression information, we found that framing affects treatment choice. Furthermore, limiting the amount of progression information in a graphical display could benefit patients' understanding of risks and benefits. For prognostic information about side effects and complications, precise and defined risk information was better understood than information presented in words. When displaying HRQL data, no consensus was found on which graph type to use.

CONCLUSION

Great heterogeneity in the results and methodology and in the compared communication formats precluded us from drawing any further conclusions. Practical implications for clinicians are to consider the effects that different types of framing might have on the patient and to not rely exclusively on words to describe risks, but rather include at least some form of numbers or visualization.

Developing a digital training tool to support oncologists in the skill of information-provision: a user centred approach

BACKGROUND

For patients with cancer, being well informed by their oncologist about treatment options and the implications thereof is highly relevant. Communication skills training (CST) programs have shown to be effective in improving clinicians' communication skills, yet CSTs are time-consuming, inconvenient to schedule, and costly. Online education enables new ways of accessible learning in a safe and personalised environment.

AIM AND METHODS

We describe the design of a digital CST-tool for information provision skills that meets oncologists' learning needs. We used the CeHRes Roadmap for user-centred design as a guiding framework. Phase 1 (Contextual Inquiry) involved consultation of the literature and a focus group interview study to uncover the learning needs and training preferences of clinicians' regarding a digital training for the skill of information-provision. In phase 2 (Value Specification), two multidisciplinary expert panels specified the learning content and format of a digital training. Phase 3 (Design) encompassed an iterative development process, including two user group assessment sessions and 5 individual user sessions in which prototypes were tested. All sessions were recorded and independently analyzed by two researchers.

RESULTS

Based on literature and consultation of the users in the inquiry phase of the development process, and on expert opinion in the value specification phase, relevant (sub) skills and user requirements were defined to consider for the digital training format. It was decided to develop a conventional e-learning and a chatbot. Personalization and interactivity were integrated in the prototypes by including features that allow for e.g., choosing text, video or animation; to upload video-recorded consultations to receive peer-feedback; and to consult a communication expert. Results revealed that, overall, participants expressed a willingness to use a digital training tool to acquire information-provision skills. Individual user testing (including junior clinicians), indicated a preference for the chatbot over the e-learning.

CONCLUSION

We offer a description of extensive development work which was conducted in collaboration with multiple health care professionals to iteratively develop two innovative prototypes of digital tools that would appropriately engage oncologists in learning effective information giving skills. The resulting prototypes were well appreciated and thus provide a solid basis for further development and testing.

The use of PROMs and shared decision-making in medical encounters with patients: An opportunity to deliver value-based health care to patients

BACKGROUND

The recent emphasis on value-based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision-making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect.

AIM

To describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters.

APPROACH

Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized.

RESULTS

The use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter.

CONCLUSION

Successful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self-evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time-consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.

Do clinicians convey what they intend? Lay interpretation of verbal risk labels used in decision encounters

OBJECTIVE

To assess the numerical probabilities that individuals associate with frequently-used verbal labels relating to treatment outcomes and their association with medical context, age, gender, educational level, health literacy, and numeracy.

METHODS

Verbal labels (N = 11) were extracted from N = 90 audiotaped decision encounters in oncology. Three hundred Dutch adults, as proxies for newly-diagnosed cancer patients, assigned numerical probabilities to the labels in the context of cancer recurrence or nausea, and completed questions on their socio-demographic characteristics, health literacy and numeracy.

RESULTS

We found considerable variation in how individuals interpreted the verbal labels. Participants' probability estimates of verbal labels was lower in the context of (the more serious) cancer recurrence compared to (less serious) nausea. Lower numerate participants differentiated less between labels. There was no association between participants' estimates and age, gender, educational level or health literacy.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable variation in how individuals interpret verbal labels frequently-used in decision encounters. Individuals seem to take base rates and severity of outcomes into account. Verbal labels may be less helpful to lower numerate individuals.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To minimize misinterpretation and to improve patient-clinician decision making about health and care, we recommend to avoid the use of verbal labels only.

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case

OBJECTIVE

Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations.

DESIGN

We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members.

SETTING

Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent.

PARTICIPANTS

14 CPG panel members.

MAIN OUTCOMES

For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making.

RESULTS

We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel's preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time.

CONCLUSIONS

The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

Oncologist-patient-caregiver decision-making discussions in the context of advanced cancer in an Asian setting

Objective

Patient involvement in treatment decisions is recommended in clinician‐patient encounters. Little is known about how oncologists engage patients in shared decision making in non‐Western countries. We assessed the prevalence of shared decision making among Singaporean oncologists and analysed how they discussed prognosis.

Methods

We audio‐recorded 100 consultations between advanced cancer patients and their oncologists. We developed a coding system to assess oncologist encouragement of patient participation in decision making and disclosure of an explicit prognosis. We assessed patient and oncologist characteristics that predicted these behaviours.

Results

Forty‐one consultations involved treatment discussions. Oncologists almost always listed more than one treatment option (90%). They also checked patient understanding (34%), discussed pros and cons (34%) and addressed uncertainty (29%). Oncologists discussed prognosis mostly qualitatively (34%) rather than explicitly (17%). They were more likely to give an explicit prognosis when patients/caregivers asked questions related to prognosis.

Conclusion

Oncologists in our sample engaged their patients in decision making. They have areas in which they can improve to involve patients at a deeper level to ensure shared decision making. Findings will be used to develop an intervention targeting oncologists and patients to promote patient involvement in decision making.

Do Shared Decision-Making Measures Reflect Key Elements of Shared Decision Making? A Content Review of Coding Schemes

Background. There is a growing need for valid shared decision-making (SDM) measures. We aimed to determine whether the items of extant SDM observer-based coding schemes assess the 4 key elements of SDM. Methods. Items of SDM coding schemes were extracted and categorized. Except for the 4 key elements of SDM (fostering choice awareness, informing about options, discussing patient preferences, and making a decision), (sub)categories were created inductively. Two researchers categorized items independently and in duplicate. Results. Five of 12 coding schemes assessed all 4 SDM elements. Seven schemes did not measure “fostering choice awareness,” and 3 did not measure “discussing patient preferences.” Seventy of 194 items (36%) could not be classified into one of the key SDM elements. Items assessing key SDM elements most often assessed “informing about options” (n = 57/124, 46%). Conclusion. Extant SDM coding schemes often do not assess all key SDM elements and have a strong focus on information provision while other crucial elements of SDM are underrepresented. Caution is therefore needed in reporting and interpreting the resulting SDM scores.

A cohort study of local excision followed by adjuvant therapy incorporating a contact X-ray brachytherapy boost instead of radical resection in 180 patients with rectal cancer

AIM

Recent data have suggested near-equivalent oncological results when treating early rectal cancer by local excision followed by radio- ± chemotherapy rather than salvage radical surgery. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the use of contact X-ray brachytherapy within this paradigm.

METHOD

All patients had undergone local excision and were referred to our radiotherapy centre for treatment with contact X-ray brachytherapy. Postoperative (chemo)radiotherapy was also given in their local hospital in most cases. Variables assessed were local excision method, postoperative therapy received, follow-up duration, disease-free survival, salvage surgery and stoma-free survival.

RESULTS

In total, 180 patients with a median age of 70 (range 36-99) years were assessed. Following local excision, pT stages were pT1 = 131 (72%), pT2 = 44 (26%), pT3 = 5 (2%). All patients received contact X-ray brachytherapy boosting at our centre and, in addition, 110 received chemoradiotherapy and 60 received radiotherapy alone. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range 6-48), 169 patients (94%) remained free of local recurrence. Of the 11 patients with local recurrence (three isolated nodal), five underwent salvage abdominoperineal excision. Eight patients developed distant disease, of whom five underwent metastasis surgery. At last included follow-up 173 (96%) patients were free of all disease and 170 (94%) were stoma free.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact therapy can be offered in addition to external beam radio (±chemo) therapy instead of radical surgery as follow-on treatment after local excision of early rectal cancer. This combination can provide equivalent outcomes to radical surgery. The added value of contact therapy should be formally assessed in a clinical trial.

Talking about treatment benefits, harms, and what matters to patients in radiation oncology: an observational study

Background

Shared decision making is associated with improved patient outcomes in radiation oncology. Our study aimed to capture how shared decision-making practices–namely, communicating potential harms and benefits and discussing what matters to patients–occur in usual care.

Methods

We invited a convenience sample of clinicians and patients in a radiation oncology clinic to participate in a mixed methods study. Prior to consultations, clinicians and patients completed self-administered questionnaires. We audio-recorded consultations and conducted qualitative content analysis. Patients completed a questionnaire immediately post-consultation about their recall and perceptions.

Results

11 radiation oncologists, 4 residents, 14 nurses, and 40 patients (55% men; mean age 64, standard deviation or SD 9) participated. Patients had a variety of cancers; 30% had been referred for palliative radiotherapy. During consultations (mean length 45 min, SD 16), clinicians presented a median of 8 potential harms (interquartile range 6–11), using quantitative estimates 17% of the time. Patients recalled significantly fewer harms (median recall 2, interquartile range 0–3, t(38) = 9.3, p < .001). Better recall was associated with discussing potential harms with a nurse after seeing the physician (odds ratio 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3–67.0, p = .04.) Clinicians initiated 63% of discussions of harms and benefits while patients and families initiated 69% of discussions about values and preferences (Chi-squared(1) = 37.8, p < .001). 56% of patients reported their clinician asked what mattered to them.

Conclusions

Radiation oncology clinics may wish to use interprofessional care and initiate more discussions about what matters to patients to heed Jain’s (2014) reminder that, “a patient isn’t a disease with a body attached but a life into which a disease has intruded.”

Shared decision making, a buzz-word in the Netherlands, the pace quickens towards nationwide implementation…

Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour. There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients.

Oncologist, patient, and companion questions during pretreatment consultations about adjuvant cancer treatment: a shared decision-making perspective

OBJECTIVES

To assess the occurrence of questions that foster shared decision making, in particular cancer patients' understanding of treatment decisions and oncologists' understanding of patients' priorities, during consultations in which preference-sensitive decisions are discussed. Specifically, (a) regarding patient understanding, do oncologists ask about patients' preexisting knowledge, information preferences, and understanding and do patients and companions ask about the disease and treatment, and (b) regarding patient priorities, do oncologists ask about patients' treatment- and decision-related preferences and do patients and companions ask about the decision?

METHODS

Audiotaped pretreatment consultations of 100 cancer patients with 32 oncologists about (neo)adjuvant treatment were coded and analyzed to document question type, topic, and initiative.

RESULTS

The oncologists ascertained prior knowledge in 50 patients, asked 24 patients about preferred (probability) information, and invited questions from 56 patients. The oncologists asked 32 patients about treatment preferences and/or for consent. Respectively, one-third and one-fifth of patients and companions asked about treatment benefits compared with three-quarters of them who asked about treatment harms and/or procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be helpful to patients if oncologists more often assessed patients' existing knowledge to tailor their information provision. Also, patients could receive treatment recommendations that better fit their personal situation if oncologists collected information on patients' views about treatments. Moreover, by educating patients to ask about treatment alternatives, benefits, and harms, patients may gain a better understanding of the choice they have.

Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated as the model for decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions. In this paper we sketch the history of the concept of SDM, evidence on the occurrence of the steps in daily practice, and provide a clinical audience with communication strategies to support the steps involved. Finally, we discuss ways to improve the implementation of SDM.

RESULTS

The plea for SDM originated almost simultaneously in medical ethics and health services research. Four steps can be distinguished: (1) the professional informs the patient that a decision is to be made and that the patient's opinion is important; (2) the professional explains the options and their pros and cons; (3) the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences and the professional supports the patient in deliberation; (4) the professional and patient discuss the patient's wish to make the decision, they make or defer the decision, and discuss follow-up. In practice these steps are seen to occur to a limited extent.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge and awareness among both professionals and patients as well as tools and skills training are needed for SDM to become widely implemented.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Professionals may use the steps and accompanying communication strategies to implement SDM.