Decision Regret following Treatment for Localized Breast Cancer: Is Regret Stable Over Time?

Decision-making experiences related to mastectomy: A descriptive qualitative study

AIM

To obtain an in-depth understanding of women's decision-making experiences related to mastectomy.

DESIGN

A descriptive qualitative interview study.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face with 27 Chinese women with breast cancer who underwent mastectomy at two tertiary hospitals in mainland China between September 2020 and December 2021 after obtaining the appropriate ethical approvals. Interviews were conducted in Mandarin. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Mean age of participants was 48 years (range 31-70). Most participants had low education, low monthly family income, had a partner and health insurance, had been diagnosed with early breast cancer, and had not undergone reconstructive surgery. Six categories related to decision-making experiences emerged: (1) Emotions affecting decision-making, (2) Information seeking for decision-making, (3) Beliefs about mastectomy and the breast, (4) Participation in decision-making, (5) People who influence decision-making, and (6) Post-decision reflection. Participants did not mention the role of nurses in their decision-making process for mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds valuable insights into the limited evidence on women's experience with decision-making about mastectomy from a Chinese perspective, which is important given the continuing high prevalence of mastectomy in many regions. Future studies from other countries and ethnic groups are recommended to gain diverse knowledge.

IMPACT

The findings of this study are useful for nurses and other healthcare professionals in the multidisciplinary team to better support women with breast cancer in their decision-making process regarding mastectomy. The findings could inform future interventions to support treatment decision-making and may be relevant to women living in similar socio-medical contexts to those in mainland China.

REPORTING METHOD

The study was reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Decision regret of cancer patients after radiotherapy: results from a cross-sectional observational study at a large tertiary cancer center in Germany

PURPOSE

The decision-making process regarding cancer treatment is emotionally challenging for patients and families, harboring the risk of decision regret. We aimed to explore prevalence and determinants of decision regret following radiotherapy.

METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a tertiary cancer center to assess decision regret following radiotherapy. The study employed the German version of the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale (DRS) which was validated in the study population. Decision regret was categorized as absent (0 points), mild (1-25 points), and strong (> 25 points). Various psychosocial outcome measures were collected using validated questionnaires to identify factors that may be associated with decision regret.

RESULTS

Out of 320 eligible patients, 212 participated, with 207 completing the DRS. Median age at start of radiotherapy was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR), 56-72], genders were balanced (105 female, 102 male), and the most common cancer types were breast (n = 84; 41%), prostate (n = 57; 28%), and head-and-neck cancer (n = 19; 9%). Radiotherapy was applied with curative intention in 188 patients (91%). Median time between last radiotherapy fraction and questionnaire completion was 23 months (IQR, 1-38). DRS comprehensibility was rated as good or very good by 98% (196 of 201) of patients. Decision regret was reported by 43% (n = 90) as absent, 38% (n = 78) as mild, and 18% (n = 38) as strong. In the multiple regression analysis, poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, low social support, and dissatisfaction with care were independent risk factors for higher decision regret after radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The German version of the DRS could be used to assess decision regret in a diverse cohort of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Decision regret was prevalent in a considerable proportion of patients. Further studies are necessary to validate these findings and obtain causal factors associated with decision regret after radiotherapy.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Omission of Breast Surgery Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients should have an active role in decisions about pursuing or forgoing specific therapies in treatment de-escalation trials.

Objective

To evaluate longitudinal patient-reported outcomes (PROs) encompassing decisional comfort and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients who elected to enroll in a clinical trial evaluating radiotherapy alone, without breast surgery, for invasive breast cancers with exceptional response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospective, single-group, phase 2 clinical trial at 7 US medical centers. Women aged 40 years or older with invasive cT1-2 N0-1 M0 triple-negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-positive breast cancer with no pathologic evidence of residual disease following standard NST enrolled from March 6, 2017, to November 9, 2021. Validated PRO measures were administered at baseline and 6, 12, and 36 months post-radiotherapy. Data were analyzed from January to February 2023.

Interventions

PRO measures included the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphedema (FACT-B+4), and Breast Cancer Treatment Outcomes Scale (BCTOS).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Changes in PRO measure scores and subscores over time.

Results

Among 31 patients, the median (IQR) age was 61 (56-66) years, 26 (84%) were White, and 26 (84%) were non-Hispanic. A total of 15 (48%) had triple-negative disease and 16 (52%) had ERBB2-positive disease. Decisional comfort was high at baseline (median [IQR] DRS score 10 [0-25] on a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating higher decisional regret) and significantly increased over time (median [IQR] DRS score at 36 months, 0 [0-20]; P < .001). HRQOL was relatively high at baseline (median [IQR] FACT-B composite score 121 [111-134] on a 0-148 scale, with higher scores indicating higher HRQOL) and significantly increased over time (median [IQR] FACT-B score at 36 months, 128 [116-137]; P = .04). Perceived differences between the affected breast and contralateral breast were minimal at baseline (median [IQR] BCTOS score 1.05 [1.00-1.23] on a 1-4 scale, with higher scores indicating greater differences) and increased significantly over time (median [IQR] BCTOS score at 36 months, 1.36 [1.18-1.64]; P < .001). At 36 months postradiotherapy, the cosmetic subscore was 0.45 points higher than baseline (95% CI, 0.16-0.74; P = .001), whereas function, pain, and edema subscores were not significantly different than baseline.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this nonrandomized phase 2 clinical trial, analysis of PROs demonstrated an overall positive experience for trial participants, with longitudinal improvements in decisional comfort and overall HRQOL over time and minimal lasting adverse effects of therapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945579.

Decision Regret among Patients with Early-stage Lung Cancer Undergoing Radiation Therapy or Surgical Resection

AIMS

Clinical equipoise exists regarding early-stage lung cancer treatment among patients as trials comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection are unavailable. Given the potential differences in treatment effectiveness and side-effects, we sought to determine the associations between treatment type, decision regret and depression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre, prospective study of patients with stage IA-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with planned treatment with SBRT or surgical resection was conducted. Decision regret and depression were measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment, respectively. Mixed linear regression modelling examined associations between treatment and decision regret adjusting for patient sociodemographics.

RESULTS

Among 211 study participants with early-stage lung cancer, 128 (61%) patients received SBRT and 83 (39%) received surgical resection. The mean age was 73 years (standard deviation = 8); 57% were female; 79% were White non-Hispanic. In the entire cohort at 3 months post-treatment, 72 (34%) and 57 (27%) patients had mild and severe decision regret, respectively. Among patients who received SBRT or surgery, 71% and 46% of patients experienced at least mild decision regret at 3 months, respectively. DRS scores increased at 6 months and decreased slightly at 12 months of follow-up in both groups. Higher DRS scores were associated with SBRT treatment (adjusted mean difference = 4.18, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 7.54) and depression (adjusted mean difference = 3.49, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 6.47). Neither patient satisfaction with their provider nor decision-making role concordance was associated with DRS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Most early-stage lung cancer patients experienced at least mild decision regret, which was associated with SBRT treatment and depression symptoms. Findings suggest patients with early-stage lung cancer may not be receiving optimal treatment decision-making support. Therefore, opportunities for improved patient-clinician communication probably exist.

Decision regret in breast cancer patients after adjuvant radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Breast cancer patients often engage in shared decision-making to select an individualized treatment regimen from multiple options. However, dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes can lead to decision regret. We evaluated decision regret and physical and psychological well-being among breast cancer patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy and explored their associations with patient, tumor, treatment, and symptom characteristics.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study involved retrospectively obtaining clinical data and data collected through interviews carried out as part of regular long-term medical aftercare. Decision regret regarding the radiotherapy was assessed using the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale, physical and psychological well-being were assessed using the PROMIS Global Health-10 questionnaire, and patients were asked about their treatment outcomes and symptoms. The questionnaire was administered 14 months to 4 years after completion of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Of the 172 included breast cancer patients, only 13.9% expressed high decision regret, with most patients expressing little or no decision regret. More decision regret was associated with volumetric modulated arc therapy, chest wall irradiation, use of docetaxel as a chemotherapy agent, lymphangiosis carcinomatosa, new heart disease after radiotherapy, and lower psychological well-being.

CONCLUSION

Although most patients reported little or no decision regret, we identified several patient, treatment, and symptom characteristics associated with more decision regret. Our findings suggest that psychological well-being influences patients' satisfaction with therapy decisions, implying that practitioners should pay special attention to maintaining psychological well-being during shared decision-making and ensuring that psychological assessment and treatment is provided after cancer therapy to deal with long-term effects of radiotherapy.

Late toxicity-related symptoms and fraction dose affect decision regret among patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Decision regret reflects patient satisfaction with treatment choice and is associated with quality of life. This study aimed to identify patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and post-treatment symptoms associated with decision regret among patients with head and neck cancer who underwent surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients completed a questionnaire during a telephone interview. The questionnaire included the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and several specific symptom-related items. By the time of data collection, all patients had concluded their radiotherapy a minimum of 2 months and maximum of 3.3 years prior.

RESULTS

Among the 108 patients included, 40.5% reported no regret, 30.1% reported mild regret, and 29.4% reported moderate to strong regret. A higher DRS score was most strongly associated with a lower single fraction dose and more restriction in everyday life. Higher DRS scores were also correlated with trouble speaking, trouble swallowing, pain in irradiated areas, dissatisfaction with one's appearance, feeling sad, and worry over one's future health.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, we recommended that patients with head and neck cancer undergoing adjuvant radiation receive psychosocial support and adequate treatment of late toxicity-related symptoms. When confronted with different therapeutic options, radiotherapy with a higher single fraction dose (i.e., hypofractionation) may be preferred due to its association with lower decision regret.

Decision-making about mastectomy among Chinese women with breast cancer: a mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of mastectomy in China is higher than its Western counterparts. Little is known about whether Chinese women with breast cancer have been involved in the decision-making process of mastectomy, the level of decisional conflict, their perceptions of mastectomy and the factors that influence them to undergo a mastectomy. This protocol describes a mixed-methods study that aims to provide an in-depth understanding of decision-making about mastectomy among Chinese women with breast cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A three-phase, sequential explanatory mixed-methods design will be adopted. The first phase is a retrospective analysis of medical records to determine the current use of mastectomy. The second phase is a cross-sectional survey to examine women's perceptions of involvement, decisional conflict and the factors influencing them to undergo a mastectomy. The third phase is an individual interview to explore women's decision-making experiences with mastectomy. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, t-test, Fisher's exact test, χ² test, analysis of variance, Pearson's correlation and logistic regression. Qualitative data will be analysed by the inductive content analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approvals for this study have been obtained from the human research ethics committees of the University of Newcastle, Australia, Zhongshan Hospital Xiamen University, China, and the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, China. Written informed consent will be obtained from the participants. Findings of this work will be disseminated at international conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Effects of decisional conflict, decision regret and self-stigma on quality of life for breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional, multisite study in China

AIMS

To examine the differences in decisional conflict, decision regret, self-stigma and quality of life among breast cancer survivors who chose different surgeries, as well as the effects of decisional conflict, decision regret and self-stigma on quality of life.

DESIGN

Observational study.

METHODS

Paper and online surveys were used to collect data from March to September 2020. The Chinese version of the Decisional Conflict Scale, Decision Regret Scale, Self-Stigma Form and Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-B were used to measure the corresponding health outcomes for breast cancer survivors who chose different surgeries from three university-affiliated hospitals. One-way analysis of variance, Pearson's correlation coefficient and hierarchical multiple regression analysis were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 448 participants, only 21% chose breast conservative surgery, while 79% chose mastectomy with or without reconstruction. Women who chose mastectomy with reconstruction reported higher decisional conflict (p = .028) and more decision regret (p = .013) than women who chose breast conservative surgery; women who chose mastectomy without reconstruction indicated higher decisional conflict (p = .015), more decision regret (p < .001), and higher self-stigma (p = .034) than women who chose breast conservative surgery. Decisional conflict (r = -.430), decision regret (r = -.495), and self-stigma (r = -.561) were negatively correlated with quality of life. After controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables, decisional conflict and decision regret explained 19.7% and self-stigma explained 12.9% of the variance in quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Decisional conflict, decision regret and self-stigma vary according to different breast surgeries and are greatly associated with the quality of life of breast cancer survivors.

IMPACT

Future studies are warranted to investigate the decision-making process and the underlying reasons for surgical choices. Decision support strategies pre-surgery are needed to inform women about the risks and benefits of surgery options. Moreover, psychosocial support post-surgery is warranted to relieve women's self-stigma, thus improving their quality of life.

Decision regret regarding treatments among women with early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Women with early-stage breast cancer (EBC) are commonly required to make treatment decisions. Decision regret regarding treatments is an adverse outcome that negatively affects women's psychological well-being and quality of life. A systematic review will be conducted to synthesise evidence about decision regret among women regarding treatments for EBC. The study will focus on levels of decision regret, what is regretted, and the factors associated with decision regret.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. Electronic databases, including CINAHL Complete, Embase, PubMed, Medline and Web of Science, will be searched for relevant articles published from 2000 to 2021. The reference lists of eligible studies will also be manually searched. All types of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies that report on decision regret regarding treatments among women with EBC will be included. The primary outcome of this review will be women's levels of decision regret regarding breast cancer treatments. The secondary outcomes will include the content of their regrets, and the factors contributing to decision regret. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. Meta-analysis and thematic synthesis approaches will be used to synthesise quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. A convergent parallel approach will be used to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings of this work will be disseminated at international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this systematic review will inform the development of decision interventions to improve the decision outcomes of breast cancer treatments.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021260041.

Unexpected Outcomes of Measuring Decision Regret: Using a Breast Cancer Decision-Making Case Example

Shared decision making can help patients feel supported and empowered when deciding between healthcare options. Decision regret can be a meaningful measure of the quality of that encounter. However, in a patient-engaged research study examining shared decision making for breast cancer surgery, decision regret was a difficult construct to assess, and asking questions about decision regret caused the patient to experience that emotion upon reflection. In this article, we consider the complexity of decision regret, and discuss the difficulty of measuring that emotion through existing instruments. We call for clarity in definitions of decision regret and offer suggestions for developing a set of questions that can capture regret in a more meaningful way.

A special kind of stress: Assessing feelings of decisional distress for breast cancer treatment decisions

OBJECTIVE

Women with breast cancer need to make difficult treatment decisions and may experience decisional distress (worry, anxiety, and thought intrusion) associated with these decisions. This study investigated ways that decisional distress was both associated with and distinct from other variables regarding decisional process and life functioning, and it investigated the validity of a decisional distress scale.

METHODS

A total of 263 women previously or currently diagnosed with breast cancer reported on initial treatment decisions regarding surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation, or decisions involving oral endocrine therapy (either currently or retrospectively). Participants completed online measures of decisional distress, alliance and confusion in patient-practitioner relationships, positive and negative interactions in close relationships, financial and general distress, and decision satisfaction.

RESULTS

Decisional distress demonstrated a unidimensional factor structure invariant across treatment context groups, a wide range of meaningful variation, significant correlations with all hypothesized variables (especially patient confusion), but also key distinctions from other variables.

CONCLUSION

Decisional distress is a meaningful construct that can be assessed with precision, and important for understanding medical decision-making processes and patient quality of life.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Assessing decisional distress is crucial for evaluating treatment decision outcomes. One key to reducing decisional distress may involve reducing patient confusion.

Evaluation of Older Age and Frailty as Factors Associated With Depression and Postoperative Decision Regret in Patients Undergoing Major Head and Neck Surgery

Importance

Clinicians should understand the prevalence of depression and decision regret in patients with head and neck cancer and whether these factors differ with age or frailty.

Objectives

To assess whether age and frailty are associated with preoperative and/or worsening postoperative depression and postoperative decision regret in patients undergoing major head and neck surgery and to identify additional factors associated with depression and decision regret.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study was conducted at a single institution, with patients aged 50 years or older undergoing major head and neck surgery recruited from December 1, 2011, to April 30, 2014. Statistical analysis was performed from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Frailty, functional, and geriatric depression assessments were completed before surgery and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Decision regret assessment was completed 6 months after surgery. The prevalence of depression and decision regret was determined by age group. Change in depression over time was compared between age groups using a linear-effects model. Variables potentially associated with moderate to severe depression and decision regret were analyzed using a logistic regression model.

Results

The study included 274 patients (68 women and 206 men; mean [SD] age, 67.8 [9.5] years). Of these, 105 (38.3%) were 50 to 64 years of age and 169 (61.7%) were 65 years or older. The rate of preoperative moderate to severe depression was 9.6% (21 of 219), with no difference between younger and older adult cohorts. For both age groups, depression scores increased in the postoperative period from baseline to 6 months. At 12 months, there was a difference in depression scores between the younger and older adult cohort (4.8 [4.6] vs 3.1 [3.6]). A higher preoperative Fried Frailty Index score (odds ratio, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.63-4.06]) was associated with preoperative moderate to severe depression. For all patients, the mean Decision Regret Scale score was 18.2 (range, 0-95), and 26.7% of patients (48 of 180) had moderate to severe regret. There was no difference in Decision Regret Scale scores between younger and older patients. Preoperative depression but not frailty is associated with postoperative moderate to severe decision regret (odds ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, there was no difference based on age in the prevalence of moderate to severe depression or decision regret. A higher preoperative frailty score was associated with depression but not decision regret. Preoperative depression was the only factor associated with moderate to severe decision regret on multivariate analysis. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with moderate to severe depression and decision regret may aid in identifying patients who would benefit from more extensive preoperative counseling and preoperative and postoperative multispecialty assessment and treatment.

Multilevel Factors Associated With More Intensive Use of Radioactive Iodine for Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer

CONTEXT

The use of radioactive iodine (RAI) for low-risk thyroid cancer is common, and variation in its use exists, despite the lack of benefit for low-risk disease and potential harms and costs.

OBJECTIVE

To simultaneously assess patient- and physician-level factors associated with patient-reported receipt of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer.

METHODS

This population-based survey study of patients with newly diagnosed differentiated thyroid cancer identified via the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County included 989 patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, linked to 345 of their treating general surgeons, otolaryngologists, and endocrinologists. We assessed the association of physician- and patient-level factors with patient-reported receipt of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer.

RESULTS

Among this sample, 48% of patients reported receiving RAI, and 23% of their physicians reported they would use RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer. Patients were more likely to report receiving RAI if they were treated by a physician who reported they would use RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer compared with those whose physician reported they would not use RAI (adjusted OR: 1.84; 95% CI, 1.29-2.61). The odds of patients reporting they received RAI was 55% lower among patients whose physicians reported they saw a higher volume of patients with thyroid cancer (40+ vs 0-20) (adjusted OR: 0.45; 0.30-0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Physician perspectives and attitudes about using RAI, as well as patient volume, influence RAI use for low-risk thyroid cancer. Efforts to reduce overuse of RAI in low-risk thyroid cancer should include interventions targeted toward physicians, in addition to patients.

Assessing the quality of decision-making for planned oocyte cryopreservation

PURPOSE

This survey study aims to examine the quality of planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC) decision-making in the domains of decision change, decision difficulty, decision regret and informed choice.

METHODS

Of the 224 women who completed at least one POC cycle between 2012 and 2018 at a Canadian academic IVF centre, 198 were reachable by email for anonymous survey participation.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight questionnaires were returned (response rate 49.5%). Of these, 86 fully completed questionnaires were analyzed for this study. Eighty-eight percent of respondents stated that it was a 'good decision' to cryopreserve oocytes, in retrospect. Despite this, 31% found the decision-making process to be 'difficult'. Three in five (61%) would have made 'exactly the same' decision without any change, yet slightly over a third (35%) would have made a 'similar' decision, but with option-related changes and process-related changes. A negative correlation between 'decision regret' and 'informed choice' was found (p < .005). Those who stated that they would have made exactly the 'same' POC decision were found to have a significantly higher 'informed choice' score compared to others who would have made a 'similar' or 'completely different' decision, in retrospect (p < .001). Respondents with lesser 'decision regret' were significantly more likely to appraise their decision as a well-informed choice (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that high-quality POC decision-making is accompanied by the perception of being able to make an informed choice, which can be achieved by providing patients with adequate information and individualized counselling to help patients set realistic expectations of cycle outcomes.

A randomised online experimental study to compare responses to brief and extended surveys of health-related quality of life and psychosocial outcomes among women with breast cancer

PURPOSE

Collecting patient-reported outcomes is important in informing the well-being of women with breast cancer. Consumer perceptions are important for successful implementation of monitoring systems, but are rarely formally assessed. We compared reactions to two different surveys (assessing psychosocial outcomes and/or Health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL) outcomes) among Australian women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Women (18 + years) within 5 years diagnosis of breast cancer were randomly allocated to complete one of two online surveys: (i) minimum HrQoL measures or (ii) minimum HrQoL measures plus psychosocial outcomes (body image, depression, anxiety stress, fear of cancer recurrence, decisional difficulties and unmet need). Participants completed questions regarding their perceptions of the survey, including qualitative feedback.

RESULTS

Data were available for 171 participants (n_(i) = 89; n_(ii) = 82), with 92% (n = 158) providing 95-100% complete data. Perceptions were comparable between survey groups, and high (80-100%) regarding time burden, ease of completion, comprehensible, appropriateness and willingness to participate again and moderately high (67-74%) regarding willingness to answer more questions and relevance. Qualitative feedback indicated gaps across both surveys, including financial/work-related issues, satisfaction with information and care, need for nuanced questions, and impact of side effects/treatment, and from the minimum set only, emotional well-being and support. Impairment in some HrQoL and psychosocial outcomes were observed among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of HrQoL and psychosocial outcomes was well received by consumers. Results alleviate concern regarding possible patient burden imposed by longer more in-depth surveys. The importance placed on assessment brevity should not outweigh the need to assess outcomes that consumers consider important.

Study structure may compromise understanding of longitudinal decision regret stability: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of decision regret studies in cancer patients to determine if regret is longitudinally stable, and whether these study structures account for late-emerging treatment effects.

METHODS

Online databases including the George Mason Libraries, Global Health, Nursing and Allied Health, and PubMed were searched to identify decision regret studies with longitudinal components in patients with cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 845 unique citations were identified; 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Data was also collected on the time horizon for 90 studies; 47 % of studies evaluated regret at time points of one year or less, although this has increased significantly in prostate cancer citations since 2010. Regret was infrequent, affecting less than 20 % of patients, and often stable. Effect sizes in studies where decision regret changed over time were small to negligible.

CONCLUSION

Longitudinal effects can influence the expression of decision regret, yet many studies are not designed to collect long-term data; prostate cancer studies may be particularly disadvantaged. The degree of this influence in current studies is small, though this outcome must be interpreted with caution.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers should be aware of the risk of late-emerging regret and counsel patients appropriately.

Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Role Perceptions and Choice of Surgery

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies have reported that breast cancer patients who perceived more personal responsibility for the surgery decision were more likely to undergo aggressive surgery. We examined this in a prospective study.

METHODS

100 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients identified their decision- making role using the Patient Preference Scale. Chart review captured the initial surgery received. Patient decision role preference, role perception, role concordance, and provider role perception were compared with type of surgery to assess differences between mastectomy and lumpectomy groups and unilateral versus bilateral mastectomy. We compared type of surgery and patient role concordance. Satisfaction with Decision immediately after the visit, Decision Regret and FACT-B quality of life at 2 weeks and 6 months were assessed and compared with type of surgery.

RESULTS

Patient decision role preference (p = 0.49) and perception (p = 0.16) were not associated with type of surgery. Provider perception of patient role was associated with type of surgery, with providers perceiving more passive patient roles in the mastectomy group (p = 0.026). Patient role preference varied significantly by stage of disease (= 0.024), with stage 0 (64%, N = 6) and stage III (60%, N = 6) patients preferring active roles and stage I (60%, N = 25) and stage II (52%, N = 16) patients preferring a collaborative role.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient role preference and perception were not associated with type of surgery, while provider perception of patient role was. Patient role preference varied by stage of disease. Further study is warranted to better understand how disease factors and provider interactions affect decision role preferences and perceptions and surgical choice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03350854). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03350854 .

Patient-Perceived Lack of Choice in Receipt of Radioactive Iodine for Treatment of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

PURPOSE

For many patients with differentiated thyroid cancer, use of radioactive iodine (RAI) does not improve survival or reduce recurrence risk. Yet there is wide variation in RAI use, emphasizing the importance of understanding patient perspectives regarding RAI decision making.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All eligible patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer from 2014 to 2015 from the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed (N = 2,632; response rate, 63%). Patients in whom selective RAI use is recommended were included in this analysis (n = 1,319). Patients were asked whether they felt like they had a choice to receive RAI (yes or no), how strongly their physician recommended RAI (5-point Likert-type scale), whether they received RAI (yes or no), and how satisfied they were with their RAI decision (more [score of 4 or greater] v less). Multivariable, weighted logistic regression with multiple imputation was used to assess the associations between patient characteristics and perception of no RAI choice and between perception of no RAI choice with receipt of RAI and decision satisfaction.

RESULTS

More than half of respondents (55.8%) perceived they did not have an RAI choice, and the majority of patients (75.9%) received RAI. The odds of perceiving no RAI choice was greater among those whose physician strongly recommended RAI (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.17). Patients who perceived they did not have an RAI choice were more likely to receive RAI (adjusted OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.64 to 3.82) and report lower decision satisfaction (adjusted OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.67 to 3.20).

CONCLUSION

Many patients did not feel they had a choice about whether to receive RAI. Patients who perceived they did not have a choice were more likely to receive RAI and report lower decision satisfaction, suggesting a need for more shared decision making to reduce overtreatment.

Assessing decision regret in caregivers of deceased German people with cancer-A psychometric validation of the Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers

Background

Decisional regret during or after medical treatments is linked to significant distress. Regret affects not only patients but also caregivers having an active or passive role during decision making. The Decision Regret Scale (DRS) is a self‐report measure for regret in patients after treatment decisions. However, practical and psychometrically robust instruments assessing regret in caregivers are lacking.

Objective

To develop and validate a caregiver version of the DRS (Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers [DRS‐C]).

Design

Psychometric validation based on a web survey.

Setting and participants

361 caregivers of deceased German people/patients with cancer.

Main variables studied

Besides structural validity and test‐retest reliability, we evaluated measurement invariance accounting for gender, age and closeness of relationship, and tested hypotheses on convergent/discriminant validity.

Results

Forty‐five per cent of all caregivers demonstrated decision regret. Confirmatory factor analyses strongly supported the unidimensional structure of the DRS‐C and pointed to strict invariance. The DRS‐C demonstrated very good internal consistency (α = 0.83, 95% CI [0.81, 0.86]) and test‐retest reliability (ICC [A,1] = 0.73, 95% CI [0.59, 0.83]) along with sound convergent/discriminant validity. Concerning responsiveness, DRS‐C scores remained stable over a 12‐week period in 83.3% of all caregivers. Receiver operating characteristic analysis yielded a cut point of 43 for the identification of significant decision regret (AUC = 0.62, 95% CI [0.56, 0.68]).

Discussion and conclusions

The lack of a gold standard instrument prevented us from examining the criterion validity and determining a minimally important difference. Nevertheless, the DRS‐C provides valid and reliable information regarding caregiver regret following medical decisions. Above all, it captures a crucial aspect of the treatment experience in caregivers.

Local Therapy Decisional Regret in Older Women With Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study

PURPOSE

Older women with nonmetastatic breast cancer can often choose from several surgery and radiation treatment options. Little is known regarding how these choices contribute to decisional regret, which is a negative emotion reflecting the idea that another surgery or radiation decision might have been preferable. We sought to characterize the burden of and examine potential risk factors for local therapy decisional regret among a population-based cohort of older breast cancer survivors.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

National Medicare claims for age ≥67 female breast cancer incident in 2009 identified patients treated with lumpectomy plus whole-breast irradiation, brachytherapy, or endocrine therapy or mastectomy with or without radiation. We sampled 330 patients per treatment group (N = 1650), of whom 1253 agreed to receive a paper survey including the Decisional Regret Scale and EQ-5D-3L Health-Utility Scale. Local therapy regret was defined as neutral or worse response to questions regarding surgery- or radiation-related decisional regret. Local therapy regret risk factors were evaluated using a multivariable generalized linear model. Association of local therapy regret with health utility was modeled using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

The response rate was 30.2% (n = 498 of 1650); 421 surveys were included in this analysis. Median diagnosis age was 72 years, and surveys were completed 6 years after diagnosis. Overall, 23.8% of respondents (n = 100) reported experiencing local therapy decisional regret. Type of local therapy was not associated with local therapy regret. Predictors of increased regret included black race (risk ratio [RR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-3.29), high school education or less (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27-2.75), and axillary nodal dissection (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.33-3.41). Local therapy regret was not associated with health utility (P = .37).

CONCLUSIONS

Local therapy regret afflicts nearly one quarter of our cohort of older breast cancer survivors, and it is associated with black race, less education, and more extensive nodal dissection, but not breast surgery. Regret is distinct from health utility, suggesting that it is a unique psychosocial construct that merits further study and mitigation strategies.

Understanding the engagement of key decision support persons in patient decision making around breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast cancer involve multiple decision support persons (DSPs) in treatment decision making, yet little is known about DSP engagement in decision making and its association with patient appraisal of the decision process.

METHODS

Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer reported to Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015 were surveyed 7 months after their diagnosis. The individual most involved in each respondent's decision making (the key DSP) was surveyed. DSP engagement was measured across 3 domains: 1) informed about decisions, 2) involved in decisions, and 3) aware of patient preferences. Patient decision appraisal included subjective decision quality (SDQ) and deliberation. This study evaluated bivariate associations with chi-square tests between domains of DSP engagement and independent DSP variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of DSP engagement with patient decision appraisal.

RESULTS

In all, 2502 patients (68% response rate) and 1203 eligible DSPs (70% response rate) responded. Most DSPs were husbands/partners or daughters, were white, and were college graduates. Husbands/partners were more likely to be more informed, involved, and aware (all P values < .01). English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos had a higher extent of (P = .02) but lower satisfaction with involvement (P < .01). A highly informed DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported SDQ (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.08; P = .03). A highly aware DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported deliberation (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.47; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study, informal DSPs were engaged with and positively contributed to patients' treatment decision making. To improve decision quality, future interventions should incorporate DSPs.

Social Network, Surgeon, and Media Influence on the Decision to Undergo Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

OBJECTIVES

The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has risen sharply in the past decade. The current study was designed to examine social network, surgeon, and media influence on patients' CPM decision-making, examining not only who influenced the decision, and to what extent, but also the type of influence exerted.

METHODS

Patients (N=113) who underwent CPM at 4 Indiana University-affiliated hospitals between 2008 and 2012 completed structured telephone interviews in 2013. Questions addressed the involvement and influence of the social network (family, friends, and nonsurgeon health professionals), surgeon, and media on the CPM decision.

RESULTS

Spouses, children, family, friends, and health professionals were reported as exerting a meaningful degree of influence on patients' decisions, largely in ways that were positive or neutral toward CPM. Most surgeons were regarded as providing options rather than encouraging or discouraging CPM. Media influence was present, but limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who choose CPM do so with influence and support from members of their social networks. Reversing the increasing choice of CPM will require educating these influential others, which can be accomplished by encouraging patients to include them in clinical consultations, and by providing patients with educational materials that can be shared with their social networks. Surgeons need to be perceived as having an opinion, specifically that CPM should be reserved for those patients for whom it is medically indicated.

How Anesthetic, Analgesic and Other Non-Surgical Techniques During Cancer Surgery Might Affect Postoperative Oncologic Outcomes: A Summary of Current State of Evidence

The question of whether anesthetic, analgesic or other perioperative intervention during cancer resection surgery might influence long-term oncologic outcomes has generated much attention over the past 13 years. A wealth of experimental and observational clinical data have been published, but the results of prospective, randomized clinical trials are awaited. The European Union supports a pan-European network of researchers, clinicians and industry partners engaged in this question (COST Action 15204: Euro-Periscope). In this narrative review, members of the Euro-Periscope network briefly summarize the current state of evidence pertaining to the potential effects of the most commonly deployed anesthetic and analgesic techniques and other non-surgical interventions during cancer resection surgery on tumor recurrence or metastasis.

Long-term decision regret surrounding systemic therapy in older breast cancer survivors: A population-based survey study

INTRODUCTION

Little is known regarding regret experienced by older breast cancer survivors surrounding the choice for adjuvant systemic therapy, which limits providers' ability to optimally engage in the shared decision-making process. To address this, we evaluated endocrine therapy and chemotherapy decisional regret in a population-based cohort of older breast cancer survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nationally comprehensive Medicare claims identified women age ≥67 living in the US with non-metastatic breast cancer diagnosed in 2009 and still alive in 2015. The Decision Regret Scale, a validated index that assesses regret regarding treatment decisions on a scale of 0 (no regret) to 100, was used to measure regret for endocrine therapy and chemotherapy approximately 6 years after diagnosis and was adjusted for sampling weight. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for patient, demographic, and treatment characteristics identified predictors of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy decision regret.

RESULTS

Of the 480 respondents, 299 patients (61.1%) reported receiving endocrine therapy and 133 (27%) chemotherapy. The overall weighted decision-regret score was 17.2 (95%CI 13.6-20.8) for endocrine therapy and 17.7 (95%CI 12.1-23.3) for chemotherapy. Risk factors for higher endocrine therapy regret included white race (referent non-white race; estimate 12.8, 95%CI 3.0-22.7; P = 0.01) and post-graduate educational attainment (referent college education; 11.6, 95%CI 1.9-21.3; P = 0.02). The only risk factor for chemotherapy regret, albeit marginal, was age ≥75 (referent age 67-74; 12.0, 95%CI -0.1-24.2; P = 0.05) CONCLUSION: Overall, decision regret levels regarding systemic therapy in older breast cancer survivors are reassuringly low. However, further studies are needed to explore drivers of regret in certain vulnerable subgroups of patients.

Validity and Reliability of the Decision Regret Scale in Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Decisional regret is an indicator of satisfaction with the treatment decision and can help to identify those patients who need more support and evaluate the efficacy of decision support interventions. The objectives of this study are, 1) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Decision Regret Scale and 2) to analyze the moderating effect of psychological distress on functional status and regret in patients with cancer following adjuvancy.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter cohort of 403 patients who completed the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Health-Related Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The evaluation was conducted six months after receiving adjuvant treatment in patients with resected cancer.

RESULTS

After treatment, most participants (51.9%) experienced no decision regret; 33.7% felt mild regret, and 14.4% exhibited high levels of regret. The Spanish version of the DRS demonstrated satisfactory properties: it had a strong, clear unidimensional factorial structure with substantial loadings. Decisional regret was related with lower scores on functional, symptom, and quality of life scales, and higher levels of psychological distress (all P = 0.001). Psychological distress was found to have a moderating effect on the relationship between functional state and decision regret.

CONCLUSIONS

The Spanish version of the DRS is a reliable, valid tool to evaluate regret and post-decisional quality in clinical practice and further highlights the potential clinical implications of psychological distress for the relation between physical status and regret.

Regret in Surgical Decision Making: A Systematic Review of Patient and Physician Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Regret is a powerful motivating factor in medical decision making among patients and surgeons. Regret can be particularly important for surgical decisions, which often carry significant risk and may have uncertain outcomes. We performed a systematic review of the literature focused on patient and physician regret in the surgical setting.

METHODS

A search of the English literature between 1986 and 2016 that examined patient and physician self-reported decisional regret was carried out using the MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science databases. Clinical studies performed in patients and physicians participating in elective surgical treatment were included.

RESULTS

Of 889 studies identified, 73 patient studies and 6 physician studies met inclusion criteria. Among the 73 patient studies, 57.5% examined patients with a cancer diagnosis, with breast (26.0%) and prostate (28.8%) cancers being most common. Interestingly, self-reported patient regret was relatively uncommon with an average prevalence across studies of 14.4%. Factors most often associated with regret included type of surgery, disease-specific quality of life, and shared decision making. Only 6 studies were identified that focused on physician regret; 2 pertained to surgical decision making. These studies primarily measured regret of omission and commission using hypothetical case scenarios and used the results to develop decision curve analysis tools.

CONCLUSION

Self-reported decisional regret was present in about 1 in 7 surgical patients. Factors associated with regret were both patient- and procedure related. While most studies focused on patient regret, little data exist on how physician regret affects shared decision making.

High Levels of Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret When Making Decisions About Biologics

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to understand the association between parents' perceptions of the decision process and the decision outcomes in decisions about the use of biologics in pediatric chronic conditions.

METHODS

We mailed surveys to parents of children with inflammatory bowel disease or juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had started treatment with biologics in the prior 2 years and were treated at either of 2 children's hospitals. The survey included measures of the decision process, including decision control and physician engagement, and decision outcomes, including conflict and regret. We used means and frequencies to assess the response distributions. General linear models were used to test the associations between decision process and decision outcomes.

RESULTS

We had 201 respondents (response rate 54.9%). Approximately 47.0% reported using shared decision making. Each physician engagement behavior was experienced by the majority of parents, with the highest percentage reporting that their child's physician used language they understood and listened to them. Approximately 48.5% of parents had decisional conflict scores of 25 or greater, indicating high levels of conflict. Approximately 28.2% had no regret, 31.8% had mild regret, and the remaining 40.0% had moderate to severe regret. Shared decision making was not associated with improved decisional conflict, but physician engagement behaviors were associated with both decisional conflict and regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving decision outcomes will require more than just focusing on who parents perceive as controlling the final decision. Developing interventions that facilitate specific physician engagement behaviors may decrease parents' distress around decision making and improve decision outcomes.