Effectiveness, cost-utility and implementation of a decision aid for patients with localised prostate cancer and their partners: study protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

Decision Aids for Shared Decision-making in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Decision aids (DAs) aim to support patients in the process of shared decision-making for complex treatment decisions. To improve patient-centered care in uro-oncology, it is essential to evaluate the availability and quality of existing DAs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of existing DAs for patients across the most prevalent uro-oncological entities.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic literature search (MedLine, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and CCMed) was conducted to identify DAs for treatment decisions for patients with prostate, renal, or bladder cancer. All studies reporting on the development or evaluation of DAs were included. The DAs were examined based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and the evaluation studies were compared in accordance with Standards for Universal reporting of a patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature search identified 1995 potentially relevant publications. Thirty-two studies reporting on 25 DAs met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two DAs address prostate cancer, two renal tumor, and one bladder cancer. In the majority of DAs (n = 20), patients can enter individual data. A few (n = 6) DAs allow for personalization using a risk-adapted presentation of treatment options. The percentage of IPDAS criteria met in DAs ranged between 50% and 100% (median 87.5%), and the studies' adherence to the SUNDAE checklist was between 62% and 96% (median 86.6%). Evaluation studies suggest that interventions are likely efficacious. However, a preliminary meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between "DA" and "usual care" for decisional conflict or decisional regret.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that a number of well-developed DAs exist in urology. However, there is a need for specific instruments targeting kidney and bladder cancer. Personalization of tools and adherence to international standards of DAs should be further improved.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The majority of uro-oncological decision aids target prostate cancer, whereas fewer address kidney or bladder cancer. The quality of the existing instruments is high, but can be increased further to better address specific needs of individual patients.

Health Economic Evaluation Alongside Stepped Wedge Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been an increase in use of the stepped wedge trial (SWT) design in the context of health services research, due to its pragmatic and methodological advantages over the parallel group design.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to summarise the statistical methods used when conducting economic evaluations alongside SWTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search extending to February 2020 was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) databases to find and evaluate studies where there was an intention to conduct an economic evaluation alongside an SWT. Studies were assessed for their eligibility, findings, reporting of statistical methods and quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Of the 586 studies retrieved from the literature search, 69 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. A total of 54 studies were published protocols, with eight economic evaluations and seven studies reporting full trial results. Included studies varied in terms of their reporting of statistical methods, in both detail and methodology. There were 34 studies that did not report any statistical methods for the economic evaluation, and only 16 studies reported appropriate methods, mainly using some form of mixed/multilevel model, and two used seemingly unrelated regression. Twelve studies reported the use of generic bootstrap methods and other modelling techniques, whilst the remaining studies failed to appropriately account for clustering, correlation or adjustment for time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of appropriate statistical methods that account for time, clustering and correlation between costs and outcomes is an important part of SWT health economics analysis, one that will benefit from an effort to communicate the methods available and their performance.

Investigating the impact of open label design on patient-reported outcome results in prostate cancer randomized controlled trials

Background

While open‐label randomized controlled trials (RCT) are common in oncology, some concerns have been expressed with regard to Patient‐Reported Outcomes (PRO)‐based claims stemming from these studies. We aimed to investigate the impact of open‐label design in the context of prostate cancer (PCa) RCTs with PRO data.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of PCa with a PRO endpoint published between 2004 and 2018 were considered. RCTs were systematically evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including international PRO reporting quality standards and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing Risk of Bias. The rate of concordance was estimated and compared between traditional clinical outcomes (eg, survival or tumor response) and PRO in open and blinded RCTs.

Results

We identified 110 RCTs published between 2004 and 2018, of which 62% (n = 68) were open‐label. The general characteristics of PCa RCTs were not different according to their design (open‐label vs blinded). The proportion of PCa RCTs with high‐quality PRO reporting was not different between open‐label RCTs and blinded RCTs (41.2% vs 38.1%; P = .75). No statistically significant difference was found between PRO results and concordance with traditional clinical outcomes according to the study design.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that there is no evidence of significant bias for PROs due to the absence of blinding in the context of PCa RCTs. Further analyses should be conducted in other cancer disease sites.

Treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in a remote area: A cross-sectional, observational study

INTRODUCTION

For the management of localized prostate cancer, patient treatment choice is poorly documented among people living in remote areas, where access to certain treatments offered in large centers involves travelling several hundred kilometres. This study aimed to describe and identify the determinants of treatment decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer living in remote areas.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients with prostate cancer were recruited from Rouyn-Noranda's urology clinic (Quebec, Canada) between 2017 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 127 men (mean age 68.34±7.23 years) constituted the study sample. Radiotherapy, a treatment not available locally, was chosen most frequently (67.7%), followed by options available locally, such as surgery (22.8%) and active surveillance (9.4%). Most patients preferred to play an active role in this choice (53.5%) and agreed with the statement, "I chose that treatment because it gives the best chance for a cure" (86.6%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that cancer stage (odds ratio [OR] 10.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.18-32.40) was the only factor associated with radiotherapy choice (patients with lower stage cancer were more likely to choose radiotherapy). The socioeconomic status was not associated with treatment choice.

CONCLUSIONS

While radiotherapy was not available locally, it was the most frequently chosen treatment, even though the available literature suggests that no one treatment option is superior in terms of cancer control. The choice of radiotherapy is not associated with patient income, but rather the cancer stage. This result could be explained by the patients' desire to avoid surgery and its adverse effects.

Patient-centred and economic effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with age-related cataract in China: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The need for cataract surgery is on the rise due to our ageing population and high demands for greater visual functioning. Although the majority of patients want to participate in a shared decision-making process, no decision aid has been available to improve the quality of decision. The present study aims to determine whether a decision aid increases informed decision about cataract surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A parallel randomised controlled trial (772 participants) will be conducted. The decision aid will be implemented among patients with any age-related cataract in Yuexiu District, which is socioeconomically representative of a major metropolitan region in Southern China. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either a patient decision aid or a traditional booklet, and they will complete three surveys: (1) baseline assessment before the intervention (time point (T)1), 2 weeks (T2) and 1 year (T3) after the intervention. The control group receives a traditional booklet with standard general information developed by the National Eye Institute to help patients understand cataract, whereas the intervention group receives a patient decision aid that includes not only the standard general information, but also the quantitative risk information on the possible outcomes of cataract surgery as well as value clarification exercise. The primary study outcome is the informed decision, the percentage of patients who have adequate knowledge and demonstrate consistency between attitudes and intentions. Secondary outcomes include perceived importance of cataract surgery benefits/harms, decision conflict and confidence, anticipated regret and booklet utilisation and acceptability at 2 weeks, and surgical rates and a cost-utility estimate of the decision aid at 1 year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (reference number: 2019KYPJ090). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings for academic audiences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03992807.