Communication in decision aids for stage I-III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

The development of a decision aid for patients with operable oropharyngeal carcinoma in the Netherlands - A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this project is to create an interactive online patient decision aid (PDA) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPSCC) patients, eligible for transoral (robotic) surgery with an ultimate goal to assist both physicians and patients in making treatment choices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, a mixed-methods approach was employed. The study involved semi-structured in-depth interviews with patients and physicians, thinking-out-loud sessions, and study-specific questionnaires. Thematic coding and analysis were conducted on verbatim transcriptions of audio-recorded interviews.

RESULTS

The PDA drafts were evaluated by twenty OPSCC survivors and twenty multidisciplinary specialists. Significant revisions were made after phase 1 to enhance readability and reduce text, whilst incorporating videos and graphics. Following all phases, both patients and specialists rated the PDA as comprehensible, feasible, and a valuable addition to regular counseling.

CONCLUSION

This study showcases the development of a PDA for early stage oropharyngeal cancer patients considering surgery and radiotherapy options. The decision aid emphasizes the disparities in short- and long-term side effects between the two treatments. Patients and physicians found the decision aid to be understandable, user-friendly, and helpful for future patients. The PDA is available on https://beslissamen.nl/.

Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights.

RESULTS

Patients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Patients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy.

A systematic review of the effects of positive versus negative framing on cancer treatment decision making

OBJECTIVE

Presenting treatment outcomes positively or negatively may differently influence treatment preferences and lead to sub-optimal decision in a medical context. This review systematically organised how positive versus negative framing of treatment outcomes influenced cancer treatment decisions of cancer patients and individuals without a cancer diagnosis.

DESIGN

Three databases (PubMed, PsycInfo and Scopus) were searched for studies reporting the effects of positive versus negative framing on cancer treatment decision-making from 1981 to December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The effects of positive versus negative framing on cancer treatment preferences and the elimination of framing effect were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies that met inclusion criteria were reviewed. Framing effect was consistently observed in individuals without a cancer diagnosis. There was not enough evidence to suggest a robust framing effect in cancer patients. Surgery was preferred in positive framing, whereas adjuvant therapy was preferred in negative framing. Justification intervention significantly eliminated framing effect. Mixed framing failed to eliminate framing effect.

CONCLUSION

Current recommendations for presenting treatment options are based on research in cancer-screening decision-making. Knowledge of how positive versus negative framing affect cancer patients' treatment decisions is still limited. Our review highlighted the need for continued research in this area.

Comparison of quality of life, symptom and functional outcomes following surgical treatment for colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgical procedures can have a significant impact on quality-of-life (QoL), functional and symptom outcomes. This retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care center evaluated the influence of four colorectal surgical procedures on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

512 patients undergoing colorectal neoplasia surgery between June 2015 and December 2017 were identified via the Cabrini Monash Colorectal Neoplasia database. Primary outcomes measured were the mean changes in PROMs following surgery utilizing the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures colorectal cancer (CRC) PROMs.

RESULTS

242 patients from 483 eligible patients responded (50% participation rate). Responders and non-responders were comparable in median age (72 vs. 70 years), gender (48% vs. 52% male), time from surgery (<1 and >1 year), overall stage at diagnosis and type of surgery. Respondents underwent either a right hemicolectomy, ultra-low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection or a transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal minimally invasive surgery. Right hemicolectomy patients reported the best post-operative function and reduced symptoms, significantly better (P < 0.01) than ultra-low anterior resection patients who reported the worst outcomes in multiple areas (body image, embarrassment, flatulence, diarrhoea, stool frequency). Furthermore, patients undergoing an abdominoperineal resection reported the worst scores for body image, urinary frequency, urinary incontinence, buttock pain, faecal incontinence and male impotence.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in PROMs in CRC surgical procedures is demonstrable. The worst post-operative functional and symptom scores were reported after either an ultra-low anterior resection or an abdominoperineal resection. Implementation of PROMs will identify and aid early patient referral to allied health and support services.

Assessment of patients' preferences for new anticancer drugs in China: a best-worst discrete choice experiment on three common cancer types

OBJECTIVES

Despite the advancement in anticancer drug therapies, cancer treatment decisions are often complex and preference-sensitive, making them well suited for studying shared decision-making (SDM). Our study aimed to assess preferences for new anticancer drugs among three common types of patients with cancer to inform SDM.

DESIGN

We identified five attributes of new anticancer drugs and used a Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice sets for a best-worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE). The mixed logit regression model was applied to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity.

SETTING

The BWDCE was conducted in Jiangsu province and Hebei province in China.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 years or older, who had a definite diagnosis of lung cancer, breast cancer or colorectal cancer were recruited.

RESULTS

Data from 468 patients were available for analysis. On average, the most valued attribute was the improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (p<0.001). The low incidence of severe to life-threatening side effects, prolonged progression-free survival and the low incidence of mild to moderate side effects were also positive predictors of patients' preferences (p<0.001). Out-of-pocket cost was a negative predictor of their preferences (p<0.001). According to subgroup analysis by type of cancer, the improvement in HRQoL remained the most valuable attribute. However, the relative importance of other attributes varied by type of cancer. Whether patients were newly diagnosed or previously diagnosed cancer cases played a dominant role in the preference heterogeneity within each subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study can assist in the implementation of SDM by providing evidence on patients' preferences for new anticancer drugs. Patients should be informed of the multiattribute values of new drugs and encouraged to make decisions reflecting their values.

Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information

Background

Statistical information (e.g., on long-term survival or side effects) may be valuable for healthcare providers to share with their patients to facilitate shared decision making on treatment options. In this pre-registered study, we assessed cancer survivors’ need for generic (population-based) versus personalized (tailored towards patient/tumor characteristics) statistical information after their diagnosis. We examined how information coping style, subjective numeracy, and anxiety levels of survivors relate to these needs and identified statistical need profiles. Additionally, we qualitatively explored survivors’ considerations for (not) wanting statistical information.

Methods

Cancer survivors’ need for statistics regarding incidence, survival, recurrence, side effects and quality of life were assessed with an online questionnaire. For each of these topics, survivors were asked to think back to their first cancer diagnosis and to indicate their need for generic and personalized statistics on a 4-point scale (‘not at all’- ‘very much’). Associations between information coping style, subjective numeracy, and anxiety with need for generic and personalized statistics were examined with Pearson’s correlations. Statistical need profiles were identified using latent class analysis. Considerations for (not) wanting statistics were analyzed qualitatively.

Results

Overall, cancer survivors (n = 174) had a higher need for personalized than for generic statistics (p < .001, d = 0.74). Need for personalized statistics was associated with higher subjective numeracy (r = .29) and an information-seeking coping style (r = .41). Three statistical need profiles were identified (1) a strong need for both generic and personalized statistics (34%), (2) a stronger need for personalized than for generic statistics (55%), and (3) a little need for both generic and personalized statistics (11%). Considerations for wanting personalized cancer statistics ranged from feelings of being in control to making better informed decisions about treatment. Considerations for not wanting statistics related to negative experience with statistics and to the unpredictability of future events for individual patients.

Conclusions

In light of the increased possibilities for using personalized statistics in clinical practice and decision aids, it appears that most cancer survivors want personalized statistical information during treatment decision-making. Subjective numeracy and information coping style seem important factors influencing this need. We encourage further development and implementation of data-driven personalized decision support technologies in oncological care to support patients in treatment decision making.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02005-2.

Communication, perception, and use of personalized side-effect risks in prostate cancer treatment-decision making: An observational and interview study

OBJECTIVE

We investigated how healthcare professionals (HPs) communicate personalized risks of treatment side-effects to patients with localized prostate cancer during consultations, and explored how these patients perceive and use such risks during treatment decision-making.

METHODS

Patient consultations with nurse practitioners and urologists discussing personalized risks of urinary incontinence after prostatectomy were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients (n = 27) were then interviewed to explore their perceptions and use of personalized side-effect risks.

RESULTS

HPs explained personalized risks by discussing risk factors, which was appreciated and recalled by patients. Personalized risks were typically communicated both numerically and verbally (70%). When using numbers, HPs always used percentages, but rarely used natural frequencies (14%). Uncertainty was disclosed in only 34% of consultations. One-third of patients used personalized risks in their treatment decision-making by either switching to another treatment or sticking to their initial preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients value and use personalized side-effect risks during treatment decision-making. Clearly explaining the relationship between risk factors and personalized risk estimates may help patients understand and recall those. Practice implications HPs should not only give patients specific and precise numerical risk information, but should also put effort in explaining how the personalized side-effect risks are determined.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Personalised Medicine: Opening the Debate

Surgeons and cancer patients are starting to open the debate on how personalised medicine could use shared decision-making (SDM) to balance the personal and clinical components and thus improve the quality and value of care. Personalised precision medicine (PPM) has traditionally focused on the use of genomic information when prescribing treatments, which are usually pharmaceutical. However, the knowledge base is considerably scarcer in terms of how clinicians can individualise the information they provide patients about the consequences of different treatments, and in doing so involve them in the decision-making process. To achieve this, the ethical implications of SDM must be addressed from both sides. This paper explores the medical characteristics, the SDM implications in severe and fragile patients, potential risks, and observed benefits within this healthcare approach through four clinical cases. Findings shed light on current needs for clinician and patient training and tools related to SDM in PPM, and also remarks on the way in which this shift in healthcare settings is taking place to include the human component together with the biological and technological advances when designing care processes in colorectal cancer.