Parallel multicentre randomised trial of a clinical trial question prompt list in patients considering participation in phase 3 cancer treatment trials

"I Didn't Know What I Didn't Know": Assessment of Adolescent Oncology Patient Engagement in Decision-Making

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the best way to engage an adolescent oncology patient in decision-making. To integrate adolescent oncology patients most effectively in decision-making, it is important to understand their perceptions not only as adolescents but also as adult survivors who have had time to reflect upon their experience. The purpose of this study is to explore perceptions of survivors of pediatric cancer to better understand their attitudes toward participation in decision-making, decisional regret, and use of decision-support tools.

METHODS

An electronic survey tool, containing open- and closed-ended responses, was distributed to adult cancer survivors diagnosed and treated for cancer between the ages of 9 and 18 at a Midwestern, Comprehensive Cancer Center within a tertiary care academic hospital.

RESULTS

Seventy responses were received. Nearly all respondents (96%) reported that decisions made on their behalf were consistent with their desires most/all the time. Almost one-fifth felt that increased involvement would have intensified their anxiety. Eighty-five percent did not regret choices made about their cancer treatment, and 88% would have made the same choices again. Respondents desired more targeted information on the long-term impacts of treatment (i.e., infertility, memory difficulties, mental health concerns), and they highlighted the importance of communication in the decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents want to participate in the decision-making process in a way that accommodates their understanding of the pathology and potential impacts of treatment. Our results suggest that developing a simple intervention to help facilitate provision of such anticipatory guidance may be helpful.

Interventions supporting cancer patients in making decisions regarding participation in clinical trials - a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Existing research on the perspectives of patients with cancer and health care professionals indicates that patient decision making on cancer clinical trial participation is a complex process and may be poorly understood, possibly compromising their decision to participate. This systematic review investigates interventions that support patients in their decision-making processes regarding whether to participate or not and assesses the qualities of the interventions, measures used and related outcomes.

METHODS

Six databases were systematically searched and only studies evaluating interventions that support the decision making of adult patients offered to enter a cancer clinical trial were included. Ten articles met the criteria and were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

The research focus of the included studies reflected the multifactorial nature of what constitutes support for patient decision making in terms of entering a cancer clinical trial. However, most interventions were based on the hypothesis that more information leads to support in decision making, and did not take other factors, such as the relationship to the clinical staff or relatives, the patients' strong hope for therapeutic benefit or other existential needs into account. The interventions were primarily based on a specific tool, executed once, which seems to imply that decisions need only to be supported once and not at several time points throughout the decision process, and did not assess the importance of a patient's family- or social relations. Moreover, few interventions focused on the patients' counselling experience or assessed patient preferences in relation to decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate a lack of research on interventions to support patients' decision making that takes other factors, apart from improving knowledge of trials, into account. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of decision support interventions to improve the experience of support in adult patients with cancer. Interventions that take patient preferences in relation to decision making and the social context of decision processes into account need to be developed and assessed.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of enhanced informed consent compared to standard informed consent to improve patient understanding of early phase oncology clinical trials (CONSENT)

INTRODUCTION

Early phase cancer clinical trials have become increasingly complicated in terms of patient selection and trial procedures-this is reflected in the increasing length of participant information sheets (PIS). Informed consent for early phase clinical trials has been contentious due to the potential ethical issues associated with performing experimental research on a terminally ill population which has exhausted standard treatment options. Empirical studies have demonstrated significant gaps in patient understanding regarding the nature and intent of these trials. This study aims to test whether enhanced informed consent for patient education can improve patient scores on a validated questionnaire testing clinical trial comprehension.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised controlled trial that will allocate patients who are eligible to participate in one of four investigator-initiated clinical trials at the Royal Marsden Drug Development Unit to either a standard arm or an experimental arm, stratified by age and educational level. The standard arm will involve the full length trial PIS, followed by electronic or paper administration of the Quality of Informed Consent Questionnaire Parts A and B (QuIC-A and QuIC-B). The experimental arm will involve the full length trial PIS, exposure to a two-page study aid and 10 online educational videos, followed by administration of the QuIC-A and QuIC-B. The primary endpoint will be the difference (using a one-sided two-sample t-test) in the QuIC-A score, which measures objective understanding, between the standard and experimental arm. Accrual target is at least 17 patients per arm to detect an 8 point difference (80% power, alpha 0.05).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was granted by the National Health Service Health Research Authority on 15 June 2020-IRAS Project ID 277065, Protocol Number CCR5165, REC Reference 20/EE/0155. Results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04407676; Pre-results.

Effect of question prompt lists for cancer patients on communication and mental health outcomes-A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review on the effects of question prompt lists (QPL) in oncological settings.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Collaboration. Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) that evaluated QPL-only interventions were included. Risk of bias of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Data concerning effects on communicative processes in patient-physician relationship and psychological outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

10 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Results suggest that QPLs lead to a shift of topics discussed. There were weak indications that QPL interventions increase anxiety shortly before and after consultations, but may decline anxiety during follow-up. Patients consistently perceive QPLs as more helpful than usual information sheets. QPL-only interventions show limited impact on communicative processes and psychological outcomes. They help not to forget or discuss important questions.

CONCLUSION

With a better integration in patient-physician communication QPLs may become a useful tool for patients and physicians. Future research is needed to investigate if there is greater benefit from QPL interventions in specific settings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

QPLs are an inexpensive tool to influence communicative processes positively in oncological consultations.

The Question-prompt list (QPL): Why it is needed in the Indian oncology setting?

BACKGROUND

In India, caregivers are an integral part of the illness experience, especially in cancer, to the extent that they can become proxy decision-makers for the patient. Further, owing to acute resource constraints in the Indian healthcare system, it may be difficult for oncologists to assess and elicit questions from each patient/caregiver. Consequently, there is a need to address these unique aspects of oncology care in India to improve patient outcomes and understanding of their illness and treatment. This can be achieved through a Question Prompt List (QPL), a checklist used by care recipients during medical consultations.

RECENT FINDINGS

This narrative review will first introduce research on the development and effectiveness of the QPL, and then it will highlight current gaps in oncology care in India and explore how the QPL may aid in closing these gaps. A literature search of the empirical research focused on the development, feasibility and acceptability of the QPL in oncology settings was conducted. The final review included 40 articles pertaining to QPL research. Additionally, psycho-oncology research in India centered on information needs and experiences was reviewed. Current Indian psycho-oncology research reports patients' want to be actively involved in their cancer care and a need for more illness information. However, a high demand on physicians' resources and the family caregivers' interference can be barriers to meeting patients' information/communication needs. International research demonstrates that a QPL helps structure and decrease consultation time, improves patient satisfaction with care, and improves the quality of communication during medical encounters.

CONCLUSION

QPLs for Indian patients and caregivers may focus on the scope of medical consultations to address patient needs while influencing the course and content of the patient-caregiver-physician interactions. Further, it can address the resource constraints in Indian oncology care settings, thus reducing the physician's burden.

A Question Prompt List for Advanced Cancer Patients Promoting Advance Care Planning: A French Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

Advance care planning is essential to enable informed medical decisions to be made and to reduce aggressiveness in end-of-life (EOL) care.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore whether a question prompt list (QPL) adapted to French language and culture could promote discussions, particularly on prognosis and EOL issues, among advanced cancer patients attending outpatient palliative care (PC) consultations.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized study, patients assigned to the intervention arm received a QPL to help them prepare for the next consultation one month later. The main inclusion criteria were advanced cancer patients referred to the PC team with an estimated life expectancy of less than one year. The primary endpoint was the number of questions raised, globally and by topic. The secondary objectives were the impact of the QPL on psychological symptoms, quality of life, satisfaction with care, and coping styles at two months.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 71) in the QPL arm asked more questions (mean 21.8 vs. 18.2, P = 0.03) than patients in the control arm (n = 71), particularly on PC (5.6 vs. 3.7, P = 0.012) and EOL issues (2.2 vs. 1, P = 0.018) but not on prognosis (4.3 vs. 3.6, not specified). At two months, there was no change in anxiety, depression, or quality of life in either arm; patient satisfaction with doctors' technical skills was scored higher (P = 0.024), and avoidance coping responses were less frequent (self-distraction, P = 0.015; behavioral disengagement, P = 0.025) in the QPL arm.

CONCLUSION

Questions on PC and EOL issues in outpatient PC consultations were more frequent, and patient satisfaction was better when a QPL was made available before the consultation.

Is Overall Mortality the Right Composite Endpoint in Clinical Trials of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome?

OBJECTIVES

Overall mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is a composite endpoint because it includes death from multiple causes. In most acute respiratory distress syndrome trials, it is unknown whether reported deaths are due to acute respiratory distress syndrome or the underlying disease, unrelated to the specific intervention tested. We investigated the causes of death after contracting acute respiratory distress syndrome in a large cohort.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis from three prospective, multicenter, observational studies.

SETTING

A network of multidisciplinary ICUs.

PATIENTS

We studied 778 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with lung-protective ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We examined death in the ICU from individual causes. Overall ICU mortality was 38.8% (95% CI, 35.4-42.3). Causes of acute respiratory distress syndrome modified the risk of death. Twenty-three percent of deaths occurred from refractory hypoxemia due to nonresolving acute respiratory distress syndrome. Most patients died from causes unrelated to acute respiratory distress syndrome: 48.7% of nonsurvivors died from multisystem organ failure, and cancer or brain injury was involved in 37.1% of deaths. When quantifying the true burden of acute respiratory distress syndrome outcome, we identified 506 patients (65.0%) with one or more exclusion criteria for enrollment into current interventional trials. Overall ICU mortality of the "trial cohort" (21.3%) was markedly lower than the parent cohort (relative risk, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.70; p < 0.000001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most deaths in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients are not directly related to lung damage but to extrapulmonary multisystem organ failure. It would be challenging to prove that specific lung-directed therapies have an effect on overall survival.