Shared decision-making and patient decision aids in choosing first-line targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in Taiwan

Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium

BACKGROUND

Elicitation of patients' preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients' preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients' treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population.

OBJECTIVE

This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy.

RESULTS

A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one's decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

Predictors of treatment refusal in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review

This systematic review was conducted to investigate predictors of treatment refusal in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. An understanding of these predictors would inform statistical models for the identification of high-risk patients who might benefit from interventions that seek to improve treatment compliance. We performed a search of PubMed and Scopus to identify potentially relevant studies on predictors of treatment refusal in CRC patients that were published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2021. We screened manuscripts using predefined eligibility criteria. Information on study design, study location, patient characteristics, treatments, rates and predictors of treatment refusal, and the impact of treatment refusal on mortality or survival were collected from eligible studies. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa score. The overall findings of the review process were summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis. A total of 13 studies were included in this review. Ten studies reported on refusal of CRC surgery, refusal rate: 0.25%-3.26%; three studies reported on chemotherapy refusal (one of which reported on both surgery and chemotherapy refusal), refusal rate: 7.8%-41.5%; and one study reported on refusal of any cancer treatment, refusal rate: 8.7%. The bulk of the published literature confirmed the harmful association between treatment refusal and poor survival outcomes in CRC patients. Frequently cited predictors of treatment refusal included patient demographic characteristics (age, race, gender), clinical characteristics (disease stage, comorbidity), and factors that impact access to cancer care services (healthcare insurance, facility level). Potentially high rates of treatment refusal pose a challenge to CRC control. This review has identified several factors which must be considered when attempting to reduce treatment refusal in CRC patients. Furthermore, these factors should be tested as components of predictive risk models for this important outcome.