What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists

A randomized controlled trial of shared decision-making treatment planning process to enhance shared decision-making in patients with MBC

PURPOSE

Opportunities exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM). Presenting patient-reported data, including patient treatment preferences, to oncologists before or during a treatment plan decision may improve patient engagement in treatment decisions.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the standard-of-care treatment planning process vs. a novel treatment planning process focused on SDM, which included oncologist review of patient-reported treatment preferences, prior to or during treatment decisions among women with MBC. The primary outcome was patient perception of shared decision-making. Secondary outcomes included patient activation, treatment satisfaction, physician perception of treatment decision-making, and use of treatment plans.

RESULTS

Among the 109 evaluable patients from December 2018 to June 2022, 28% were Black and 12% lived in a highly disadvantaged neighborhood. Although not reaching statistical significance, patients in the intervention arm perceived SDM more often than patients in the control arm (63% vs. 59%; Cramer's V = 0.05; OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.55-2.57). Among patients in the intervention arm, 31% were at the highest level of patient activation compared to 19% of those in the control arm (V = 0.18). In 82% of decisions, the oncologist agreed that the patient-reported data helped them engage in SDM. In 45% of decision, they reported changing management due to patient-reported data.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologist engagement in the treatment planning process, with oncologist review of patient-reported data, is a promising approach to improve patient participation in treatment decisions which should be tested in larger studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03806738.

Characterization of time toxicity in older patients with metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Recognizing that receiving healthcare can be time intensive and burdensome, time toxicity has been conceptualized as the time spent by patients seeking healthcare. This study investigates the association between age at diagnosis and time toxicity for patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) and identifies major components of care that confer the greatest time toxicity.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients with MBC aged 67 or older using the SEER-Medicare database. We assessed time toxicity using the number of encounter days patients interacted with the healthcare system per 100 days, within the first year of starting cancer treatment. We used a Poisson model to analyze the association between age and encounter days, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. We stratified the mean encounter days for each age cohort by treatment types.

FINDINGS

The final sample included 2949 patients; 51.4% were between 70 and 79 years old, and 81.3% were white. Although unadjusted analysis showed an association between older age and more encounter days (Rate Ratio (RR) 1.12; 95% CI 1.02, 1.22), there was no significant association after adjusting for comorbidities and treatment type. Patients with more than three comorbidities had significantly higher encounter days compared to those without comorbidities [RR 1.36 (95% CI 1.26, 1.46)]. Receipt of radiotherapy [RR: 1.45 95% CI (1.37, 1.54)] was associated with more encounter days compared to not receiving radiotherapy, while receipt of bone-modifying agents was associated with fewer encounter days compared to not using Bone modifying agents [RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70, 0.79)].

CONCLUSION

Our study identified comorbidities and cancer treatment modality, including radiotherapy, as the factors affecting time toxicity in older patients with MBC. Assessment of an individual's comorbid medical conditions and types of treatment planned are crucial to understanding age-related impacts on encounter days and to support shared decision making in older patients.

Iterative Development of an Interactive Website to Support Shared Decision-Making in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Recent treatment advances have resulted in significantly increased survival times following metastatic breast cancer (MBC) diagnosis. Novel treatment approaches-and their related side effects-have changed the landscape of MBC treatment decision-making. We developed a prototype of an online educational tool to prepare patients with MBC for shared decision-making with their oncologists. We describe the five phases of tool development: (1) in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews and (2) feedback on storyboards of initial content with patients with MBC and oncology providers. This was followed by three phases of iterative feedback with patients in which they responded to (3) initial, non-navigable website content and (4) a beta version of the full website. In the final phase (5), patients newly diagnosed with MBC (N = 6) used the website prototype for 1 week and completed surveys assessing acceptability, feasibility, treatment knowledge, preparation for decision-making, and self-efficacy for decision-making. Participants in Phase 1 characterized a cyclical process of MBC treatment decision-making and identified key information needs. Website content and structure was iteratively developed in Phases 2-4. Most participants in Phase 5 (n = 4) accessed the website 2-5 times. All participants who accessed the website at least once (n = 5) felt they learned new information from the website prototype and would recommend it to others newly-diagnosed with MBC. After using the website prototype, participants reported high preparation and self-efficacy for decision-making. This multiphase, iterative process resulted in a prototype intervention designed to support decision-making for MBC patients.

Mapping the experiences of people with advanced cancer across multiple cancer types-a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Through the introduction of tumor agnostic therapies, people with metastatic cancer and their treating physicians are facing new treatment choices that have differing side effect and efficacy profiles from conventional chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The present study undertakes a scoping review of research into the experiences of people with advanced or metastatic cancer across various solid tumor types with the goal of developing a tumor-agnostic conceptual model.

DESIGN

Automated queries on three internet search engines were performed to identify qualitative interview studies that focused on people with metastatic cancer. No limits were imposed for dates nor location of studies.

RESULTS

Of the 173 hits generated from the searches, 25 peer-reviewed papers were selected for the review with dates that ranged from 2007 to 2022. All papers originated from the USA, Europe, Australia, or Japan. Three major themes emerged that formed the basis for the tumor-agnostic conceptual model: symptoms, loss of autonomy, and adaptation/coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The explication of the interplay between the physical and emotional symptoms experienced by those with advanced and metastatic cancer using a multi-tumor approach provides the potential to make generalizations about the needs of this population. An opportunity exists to potentially address these needs through matching patient needs and preferences with the characteristics of novel therapeutics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

In the era of tumor agnostic therapies, the elicitation of patient preferences across the spectrum of anatomical origins has the potential to enhance shared decision making in the setting of metastatic disease.

Patient perceptions of altering chemotherapy treatment due to peripheral neuropathy

PURPOSE

Clinical practice guidelines recommend altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment in patients experiencing intolerable chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The primary objective of this survey was to understand patient's perspectives on altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment, including their perceptions of the benefits of preventing irreversible CIPN and the risks of reducing treatment efficacy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was distributed via social networks to patients who were currently receiving or had previously received neurotoxic chemotherapy for cancer. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Following data cleaning, 447 participants were included in the analysis. The median age was 57 years, 93% were white, and most were from the UK (53%) or USA (38%). Most participants who were currently or recently treated expected some CIPN symptom resolution (86%), but 45% of those who had completed treatment more than a year ago reported experiencing no symptom resolution. Participants reported that they would discontinue chemotherapy treatment for less severe CIPN if they knew their symptoms would be permanent than if symptoms would disappear after treatment. Most patients stated that the decision to alter chemotherapy or not was usually made collaboratively between the patient and their treating clinician (61%). The most common reason participants were reluctant to talk with their clinician about CIPN was fear that treatment would be altered. Participants noted a need for improved understanding of CIPN symptoms and their permanence, better patient education relating to CIPN prior to and after treatment, and greater clinician understanding and empathy around CIPN.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey highlights the importance of shared decision-making, including a consideration of both the long-term benefits and risks of altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment due to CIPN. Additional work is needed to develop decision aids and other communication tools that can be used to improve shared decision making and help patients with cancer achieve their treatment goals.

A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines

BACKGROUND

Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government's pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement.

METHOD

Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type.

RESULTS

The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.

POLICY SUMMARY

Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

Attitudes of healthcare professionals in treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The number of older adults with cancer is increasing worldwide. These patients' unique care needs, arising from comorbidity, polypharmacy and frailty, often necessitate healthcare professionals (HCPs) to rely on their own attitudes and assumptions to a greater extent when making decisions due to limited evidence. Differences in patient and HCP attitudes can impact treatment decisions and patient outcomes. There is limited research, however, on HCP attitudes in treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer. This scoping review aims to explore the attitudes of HCPs in treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The electronic databases PubMed, Elsevier Embase, Medline (from Embase) and EBSCO CINAHL Complete will be searched on 4 July 2023 to identify eligible studies based on the developed inclusion and exclusion criteria. No restrictions on study period, geography or language will be applied. Screening and data extraction will be completed independently by teams of two reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. The review findings will be presented as tables and in a narrative summary.This scoping review follows the framework of Arksey and O'Malley with the Levac extension. Data extraction and analysis will be performed to identify patterns and gaps in the literature to provide an overview of the attitudes of HCPs in treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is needed. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences, providing insights to improve treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer and guide future interventions for HCPs in geriatric oncology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registered on Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T7FD3.

Quality of Life and Treatment-Related Side Effects in Patients With HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer: Findings From a Multicountry Survey

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QOL) is a critical factor in decision-making for advanced breast cancer (ABC). There is a need to improve how QOL and treatment-related side effects (SEs) that impact it are clinically assessed. We examined healthcare professionals' (HCPs') and patients' perspectives on the importance of QOL discussions and the impact of SEs on QOL in clinical settings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted (7/2020-5/2021) among oncologists, nurses, and patients with HR+/HER2- ABC in 7 countries.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 502 HCPs and 467 patients. Overall, 88% of oncologists and 49% of patients recalled QOL discussions at follow-up. In the first- through fourth-line (1L, 2L, 3L, and 4L) settings, respectively, 48%, 57%, 79%, and 85% of oncologists reported QOL was very important; 73% and 45% of patients receiving 1L and 2L treatment and 40% receiving 3L+ treatment indicated QOL was important. Patients reported that insomnia, anxiety, back pain, fatigue, diarrhea, hot flashes, low sexual interest, and loss of appetite had a moderate/severe impact on QOL. Of patients experiencing certain SEs, ≥64% did not discuss them with HCPs until there was a moderate/severe impact on QOL. In patients receiving a CDK4/6 inhibitor, SEs, including insomnia, diarrhea, back pain, and fatigue, had a moderate/severe impact on QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey discovered disconnects between HCPs and patients with ABC on the importance of QOL discussions and the impact of SEs on QOL. These data support the use of ABC-specific QOL questionnaires that closely monitor SEs impacting QOL.

Patient Preferences in Metastatic Breast Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

People with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have diverse medical, physical, and psychosocial needs that require multidimensional care. Understanding patient preferences is crucial to tailor treatments, services, and foster patient-centered care. A scoping review was performed to summarize the current evidence on the preferences of people with MBC regarding their care to identify knowledge gaps and key areas for future research. The Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo databases were searched. Twenty studies enrolling 3354 patients met the study eligibility criteria. Thirteen quantitative studies, four mixed methods studies, and three qualitative studies were included. Seven studies captured healthcare provider perspectives; thirteen studies evaluated patient preferences relating specifically to cancer treatments; three studies evaluated preferences relating to supportive care; and four studies evaluated communication and decision-making preferences. The current literature evaluating MBC patient preferences is heterogeneous with a focus on cancer treatments. Future research should explore patient preferences relating to multidisciplinary, multi-modal care that aims to improve quality of life. Understanding MBC patient preferences regarding their comprehensive care can help tailor healthcare delivery, enhance the patient experience, and improve outcomes.

What Affects Treatment Underuse in Multiple Myeloma in the United States: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic malignancy. African Americans are more likely than Whites to be diagnosed with and die of MM, but they experience the same survival times in clinical trials, suggesting that differences in survival may be attributed to differences in receipt of treatment or differences in access to new treatments. We undertook this study to identify the reasons and needs underlying disparities in treatment among patients diagnosed with MM.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews in 2019-2020 with patients diagnosed with MM between 2010 and 2014 who were identified as eligible for transplant and maintenance therapy and having experienced delays in or underuse of treatment for MM. Underuse was defined as the lack of a particular treatment that the patient was eligible to receive, not being transplanted if eligible, and/or not receiving maintenance therapy. Underuse included patients' decision to delay harvest or autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for the time being and return to the decision in the future. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Four investigators independently coded transcripts through inductive analysis to assess reasons for treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Of the 29 patients interviewed, 68% experienced treatment underuse: 21% self-identified as African American, 5% as Hispanic, 10% as mixed race, 57% as White, and 16% as Asian. There were no racial differences in reasons for underuse or delay. Themes relating to treatment underuse included: perceived pros and cons of treatment, including potential harm or lack thereof in delaying treatment; physician recommendations; and personal agency.

CONCLUSION

Patients' decision making, delays, and underuse of MM treatment are influenced by social, personal, medical, and contextual factors. Patients consider their relationship with their physician to be one of the most significant driving forces in their decisions and treatment plans.

Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Breast Cancer Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Financial toxicity (FT) is the negative impact of cost of care on financial well-being. Patients with breast cancer are at risk for incurring high out-of-pocket costs given the long-term need for multidisciplinary care and expensive treatments.

Objective

To quantify the FT rate of patients with breast cancer and identify particularly vulnerable patient populations nationally and internationally.

Data Sources

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Four databases-Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, and Global Health (EBSCO)-were queried from inception to February 2021. Data analysis was performed from March to December 2022.

Study Selection

A comprehensive database search was performed for full-text, English-language articles reporting FT among patients with breast cancer. Two independent reviewers conducted study screening and selection; 462 articles underwent full-text review.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

A standardized data extraction tool was developed and validated by 2 independent authors; study quality was also assessed. Variables assessed included race, income, insurance status, education status, employment, urban or rural status, and cancer stage and treatment. Pooled estimates of FT rates and their 95% CIs were obtained using the random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

FT was the primary outcome and was evaluated using quantitative FT measures, including rate of patients experiencing FT, and qualitative FT measures, including patient-reported outcome measures or patient-reported severity and interviews. The rates of patients in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries who incurred FT according to out-of-pocket cost, income, or patient-reported impact of expenditures during breast cancer diagnosis and treatment were reported as a meta-analysis.

Results

Of the 11 086 articles retrieved, 34 were included in the study. Most studies were from high-income countries (24 studies), and the rest were from low- and middle-income countries (10 studies). The sample size of included studies ranged from 5 to 2445 people. There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of FT. FT rate was pooled from 18 articles. The pooled FT rate was 35.3% (95% CI, 27.3%-44.4%) in high-income countries and 78.8% (95% CI, 60.4%-90.0%) in low- and middle-income countries.

Conclusions and Relevance

Substantial FT is associated with breast cancer treatment worldwide. Although the FT rate was higher in low- and middle-income countries, more than 30% of patients in high-income countries also incurred FT. Policies designed to offset the burden of direct medical and nonmedical costs are required to improve the financial health of vulnerable patients with breast cancer.

Natural Language Processing for Automated Classification of Qualitative Data From Interviews of Patients With Cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to explore the use of novel natural language processing (NLP) methods for classifying unstructured, qualitative textual data from interviews of patients with cancer to identify patient-reported symptoms and impacts on quality of life.

METHODS

We tested the ability of 4 NLP models to accurately classify text from interview transcripts as "symptom," "quality of life impact," and "other." Interview data sets from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (n = 25), biliary tract cancer (BTC) (n = 23), and gastric cancer (n = 24) were used. Models were cross-validated with transcript subsets designated for training, validation, and testing. Multiclass classification performance of the 4 models was evaluated at paragraph and sentence level using the HCC testing data set and analyzed by the one-versus-rest technique quantified by the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) score.

RESULTS

NLP models accurately classified multiclass text from patient interviews. The Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model generally outperformed all other models at paragraph and sentence level. The highest predictive performance of the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model was observed using the HCC data set to train and BTC data set to test (mean ROC AUC, 0.940 [SD 0.028]), with similarly high predictive performance using balanced and imbalanced training data sets from BTC and gastric cancer populations.

CONCLUSIONS

NLP models were accurate in predicting multiclass classification of text from interviews of patients with cancer, with most surpassing 0.9 ROC AUC at paragraph level. NLP may be a useful tool for scaling up processing of patient interviews in clinical studies and, thus, could serve to facilitate patient input into drug development and improving patient care.

Progression-free survival and quality of life in metastatic breast cancer: The patient perspective

Introduction

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

•

Overall survival benefit combined with good QoL are the most important endpoints for mBC patients.

•

Time without disease progression is meaningful to patients when coupled with no worsening in or improvements in QoL.

•

Quality of life is highly individual and evolves throughout the treatment journey.

•

Surrogate endpoints are confusing; more patient-centered language is needed.

•

Healthcare professionals should account for disease and psychological well-being.

Barriers of and strategies for shared decision-making implementation in the care of metastatic breast cancer: A qualitative study among patients and healthcare professionals in an Asian country

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has been shown to improve the quality of life in metastatic breast cancer patients in high-literacy and high-resource settings. However, limited studies have examined the cultural preferences of metastatic breast cancer patients with shared decision-making implementation and the barriers encountered in an Asian setting where societal norms predominate and physician decision-making is at the forefront. This paper aims to identify (1) barriers to practising shared decision-making faced by healthcare professionals and patients and (2) strategies for implementing shared decision-making in the context of metastatic breast cancer management in Malaysia.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study involving 12 patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, 16 healthcare professionals and 5 policymakers from surgical and oncology departments at public healthcare centres in Malaysia. Semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the thematic approach. Nvivo software was used to manage and analyse the data.

RESULTS

Five main themes emerged from the study: healthcare provider-patient communication, workforce availability, cultural and belief systems, goals of care and paternalism versus autonomy. Other strategies proposed to overcome barriers to implementing shared decision-making were training of healthcare professionals and empowering nurses to manage patients' psychosocial issues.

CONCLUSION

This study found that practising shared decision-making in the public health sector remains challenging when managing patients with metastatic breast cancer. The utilization of decision-making tools, patient empowerment and healthcare provider training may help address the system and healthcare provider-patient barriers identified in this study.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients were involved in the study design, recruitment and analysis.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Understanding patient preferences in cancer management is essential for shared decision-making. Patient or societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) for desired outcomes in cancer management represents their preferences and values of these outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate how current literature has addressed WTP in relation to cancer treatment and achievement of outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from inception until 2 March 2021 to include studies with primary data of WTP values for cancer treatments or achievement of outcomes that were elicited using stated preference methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-four studies were included in this review. All studies were published after year 2000 and more than 90% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Sample size of the studies ranged from 35 to 2040, with patient being the most studied population. There was a near even distribution between studies using contingent valuation and discrete choice experiment. Based on the included studies, the highest WTP values were for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ($11,498-$589,822), followed by 1-year survival ($3-$198,576), quality of life (QoL) improvement ($5531-$139,499), and pain reduction ($79-$94,662). Current empirical evidence suggested that improvement in QoL and pain reduction had comparable weights to survival in cancer management.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides a summary on stated preference studies that elicited patient preferences via WTP and summarised their respective values. Respondents in this review had comparable WTP for 1-year survival and QoL, suggesting that improvement in QoL should be emphasised together with survival in cancer management.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Unmet needs and problems related to employment and working as reported by survivors with metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

By 2020, the US population living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has exceeded 165,000. A knowledge gap exists regarding the factors affecting work ability for these individuals. We sought to characterize the work status, importance of work, and work-related information needs for women living with MBC.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey using an MBC listserv and clinic flyers in 2014-2015. Respondents working at the time of MBC diagnosis were divided into "stably-working" and "no-longer-working" based on employment status at the time of survey. Comparisons were made with chi-square or two-tailed t test.

RESULTS

Respondents (n = 133) were predominantly non-Hispanic White (93.2%); 72 were stably-working, while 61 reported no-longer-working. Those no-longer-working were older (54.0 vs 49.5 years old, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.55), further from initial diagnosis of MBC (4.6 vs 3.3 years, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.36), and reported high rates of life interference due to MBC (n = 51, 83.6% vs n = 39, 54.2%, p < 0.01, Cramer's V = 0.32). Stably-working respondents considered work to be important (n = 58, 80.5% vs n = 18, 29.5%, p < 0.01, Cramer's V = 0.57); the top reasons cited were financial and/or insurance (80.4%), importance of staying busy (67.9%), and desire to support themselves and family (64.3%). The stably-working respondents more often valued information on how to talk with employers or co-workers about diagnosis (n = 38, 57.6% vs n = 16, 27.1%; p < 0.01), legal rights in workplace (n = 43, 65.2% vs n = 22, 36.7%; p < 0.01), when to think about stopping work (n = 45, 68.2% vs n = 18, 30%; p < 0.01), and applying for disability (n = 42, 63.6% vs n = 26, 42.6%; p < 0.05), when compared to no-longer-working.

CONCLUSION

The decision to stop working may represent a subsequent event driven by cancer progression. This research highlights the ongoing need of information targeting MBC to facilitate the management of employment and financial issues early in the MBC trajectory.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

Purpose:

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

Methods:

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders’ perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

Results:

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

Conclusion:

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

Cancer Survivors, Oncology, and Primary Care Perspectives on Survivorship Care: An Integrative Review

PURPOSE

Evidence-based models of cancer survivorship care are lacking. Such models should take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine the current state of the literature on cancer survivorship care from the cancer survivor, the oncology care team, and the primary care team perspectives.

METHODS

Using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles on the stakeholders' perspectives on cancer survivorship care published between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed and abstracted eligible articles to synthesize findings.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included in the review. Barriers to the receipt and provision of cancer survivorship care quality included challenges with communication, cancer care delivery, and knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Persistent stakeholder-identified barriers continue to hinder the provision of quality cancer survivorship care. Improved communication, delivery of care, knowledge/information, and resources are needed to improve the quality of survivorship care. Novel models of cancer survivorship care that address the needs of survivors, oncology teams, and PCPs are needed.

Financial toxicity in cancer care: origins, impact, and solutions

Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that can arise for patients, and their family members, as a result of cancer treatment. It includes direct out-of-pocket costs for treatment and indirect costs such as travel, time, and changes to employment that can increase the burden of cancer. While high costs of cancer care have threatened the sustainability of access to care for decades, it is only in the past 10 years that the term "financial toxicity" has been popularized to recognize that the financial burdens of care can be just as important as the physical toxicities traditionally associated with cancer therapy. The past decade has seen a rapid growth in research identifying the prevalence and impact of financial toxicity. Research is now beginning to focus on innovations in screening and care delivery that can mitigate this risk. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer centers to address costs of care in order to minimize financial toxicity, promote access to high value care, and reduce health disparities. We review the evolution of concerns over costs of cancer care, the impact of financial burdens on patients, methods to screen for financial toxicity, proposed solutions, and priorities for future research to identify and address costs that threaten the health and quality of life for many patients with cancer.

Addressing challenges in information-provision: a qualitative study among oncologists and women with advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

There is a need for more insight into how to address challenges of information-provision for women with advanced breast cancer. We aimed to explore oncologists' and patients' views on (i) the challenges of information-provision, and (ii) possible strategies to address these challenges, meanwhile (iii) exploring the possible facilitating role of positive expectations and empathy.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were held with oncologists (n = 10) and women with advanced breast cancer (n = 14). Principles of Thematic Analysis were followed, with two researchers analyzing transcribed data, supported by Atlas.ti software.

RESULTS

Taken together the data from oncologists and patients, we found that when communicating with patients with advanced cancer, oncologists face challenges, including handling patients' unrealistic disease (status) beliefs, and choosing approaches for discussing available treatment options and their side effects. Possible strategies to address these challenges include balancing information with acceptance of denial, and using medical expertise to guide treatment discussions. A sensitive issue is whether to discuss the option of no anti-cancer treatment. Meanwhile, approaches and preferences for discussions of side effects vary. Positive expectations and empathy can facilitate information-provision by creating space and helping patients to open up more.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating oncologists' and patients' views, oncologists can provide realistic information while also, temporarily, accepting denial, and can use their medical expertise to address challenges around unrealistic beliefs and discussion of treatment options. Finding ways to tailor discussions of no anti-cancer treatment and side-effect information are needed. Positive expectations and empathy might facilitate - tailored - information-provision, leading ultimately to patient-centered care lying at the heart of medicine.

The social meanings of choice in living-with advanced breast cancer

Individual choice is valorised as a core social value; yet the necessity and desirability of making choices takes on new significance for people living with incurable cancer who are required to make often difficult decisions about treatment, care and family life, amidst considerable vulnerability and precariousness. There has been comparatively little exploration of how choice is negotiated and made meaningful under the spectre of incurability and a contracted future. In this paper, drawing on multiple qualitative interviews with 38 women with metastatic breast cancer, we explore how they experience and give meaning to choice in relation to their health (and beyond) in their daily lives. Our analysis highlights that while exercising choice was sometimes a concealed or silent pursuit, choice was always a socially negotiated and temporally unfolding process, nested within relational and interpersonal dynamics. Choices were also often constrained, even foreclosed, due to situational and relational dynamics. Yet even in the absence of choice, the idea of choice-as-control was discursively embraced by women. We argue that greater attention is needed to the affective, temporal and economic dimensions of choice, and how treatment decisions are asymmetrically structured when considered within the normative context of cancer.

Should we be talking about guidelines with patients? A qualitative analysis in metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Little data exist on perceptions of guideline-based care in oncology. This qualitative analysis describes patients' and oncologists' views on the value of guideline-based care as well as discussing guidelines when making metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment decisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In-person interviews completed with MBC patients and community oncologists and focus groups with academic oncologists were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts independently using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Participants included 20 MBC patients, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Most patients were unfamiliar with the term "guidelines." All patients desired to know if they were receiving guideline-discordant treatment but were often willing to accept this treatment. Five themes emerged explaining this including trusting the oncologist, relying on the oncologist's experiences, being informed of rationale for deviation, personalized treatment, and openness to novel therapies. Physician discussions regarding the importance of guidelines revealed three themes: consistency with scientific evidence, insurance coverage, and limiting unusual practices. Oncologists identified three major limitations in using guidelines: lack of consensus, inability to "think outside the box" to personalize treatment, and lack of guideline timeliness. Although some oncologists discussed guidelines, it was often not considered a priority.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients expressed a desire to know whether they were receiving guideline-based care but were amenable to guideline-discordant treatment if the rationale was made clear. Providers' preference to limit discussions of guidelines is discordant with patients' desire for this information and may limit shared decision-making.

Quantifying treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to understand treatment preferences and their association with financial toxicity in Patient Advocate Foundation clients with breast cancer.

METHODS

This choice-based conjoint analysis used data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer who received assistance from the Patient Advocate Foundation. Choice sets created from 13 attributes of 3 levels each elicited patient preferences and trade-offs. Latent class analysis segmented respondents into distinct preference archetypes. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool captured financial toxicity. Adjusted generalized linear models estimated COST score differences by preference archetype.

RESULTS

Of 220 respondents (for a response rate of 10%), the median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 49-66 years); 28% of respondents were Black, indigenous, or people of color; and approximately 60% had household incomes <$40,000. The majority of respondents were diagnosed with early-stage cancer (91%), 38% had recurrent disease, and 61% were receiving treatment. Treatment choice was most affected by preferences related to affordability and impact on activities of daily living. Two distinct treatment preference archetypes emerged. The "cost-prioritizing group" (75% of respondents) was most concerned about affordability, impact on activities of daily living, and burdening care partners. The "functional independence-prioritizing group" (25% of respondents) was most concerned about their ability to work, physical side effects, and interference with life events. COST scores were found to be similar between the archetypes in adjusted models (cost-prioritizing group COST score, 12 [95% confidence interval, 9-14]; and functional independence-prioritizing COST score, 11 [95% confidence interval, 9-13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with breast cancer prioritized affordability or maintaining functional independence when making treatment decisions. Because of this variability, preference evaluation during treatment decision making could optimize patients' treatment experiences.

Patient-reported factors that influence the vestibular schwannoma treatment decision: a qualitative study

Purpose

In cases of small- to medium-sized vestibular schwannomas, three management strategies can be opted for: active surveillance, surgery or radiotherapy. In these cases, the patient’s preference is pivotal in decision-making. The aim of this study was to identify factors that influence a patient’s decision for a particular management strategy.

Methods

A qualitative inductive thematic analysis was performed based on semi-structured interviews. Eighteen patients with small- to medium-sized vestibular schwannomas were interviewed. All patients were diagnosed or treated at one of the two participating university medical centers in the Netherlands.

Results

Ten themes were identified that influenced the decision, classified as either medical or patient-related. The medical themes that emerged were: tumor characteristics, the physician’s recommendation, treatment outcomes and the perceived center’s experience. The patient-related themes were: personal characteristics, anxiety, experiences, cognitions, logistics and trust in the physician.

Conclusion

Knowledge of the factors that influence decision-making helps physicians to tailor their consultations to arrive at a true shared decision on vestibular schwannoma management.

"It's important to me": A qualitative analysis on shared decision-making and patient preferences in older adults with early-stage breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when physicians and patients jointly select treatment that aligns with patient care goals. Incorporating patient preferences into the decision-making process is integral to successful decision-making. This study explores factors influencing treatment selection in older patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC).

METHODS

This qualitative study included women age ≥65 years with EBC. To understand role preferences, patients completed the Control Preferences Scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore patients' treatment selection rationale. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method identifying major themes related to treatment selection.

RESULTS

Of 33 patients, the majority (48%) desired shared responsibility in treatment decision-making. Interviews revealed that EBC treatment incorporated three domains: Intrinsic and extrinsic influences, clinical characteristics, and patient values. Patients considered 19 treatment selection themes, the most prioritized including physician trust and physical side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Because preferences and approach to treatment selection varied widely in this sample of older, EBC patients, more research is needed to determine best practices for preference incorporation to optimize SDM at the time of treatment decisions.

Physician treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the immuno-oncology era: a discrete choice experiment

Aim: Guidelines list atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel (ANP) as the preferred first-line (1L) therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) with PD-L1 expression ≥1%, but which clinical attributes impact ANP prescribing? Materials & methods: Medical oncologists participated in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with four hypothetical mTNBC clinical scenarios to assess influences of: PD-L1 expression, menopausal status, prior adjuvant therapy and bulky liver metastases. Results: A total of 47% chose ANP in 1L irrespective of menopausal status, prior adjuvant therapy or tumor bulk. PD-L1 expression was the only attribute with a significant impact on ANP preference, with 69% choosing ANP for those with ≥1% expression versus only 26% for those with <1% (p < 0.00001). Conclusion: ANP choice for 1L mTNBC deviated from guidelines.

Health care-related time costs in patients with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Burdens related to time spent receiving cancer care may be substantial for patients with incurable, life-limiting cancers such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Estimates of time spent on health care are needed to inform treatment-related decision-making.

METHODS

Estimates of time spent receiving cancer-related health care in the initial 3 months of treatment for patients with MBC were calculated using the following data sources: (a) direct observations from a time-in-motion quality improvement evaluation (process mapping); (b) cross-sectional patient surveys; and (c) administrative claims. Average ambulatory, inpatient, and total health care time were calculated for specific treatments which differed by antineoplastic type and administration method, including fulvestrant (injection, hormonal), letrozole (oral, hormonal), capecitabine (oral, chemotherapy), and paclitaxel (infusion, chemotherapy).

RESULTS

Average total time spent on health care ranged from 7% to 10% of all days included within the initial 3 months of treatment, depending on treatment. The greatest time contributions were time spent traveling for care and on inpatient services. Time with providers contributed modestly to total care time. Patients receiving infusion/injection treatments, compared with those receiving oral therapy, spent more time in ambulatory care. Health care time was higher for patients receiving chemotherapeutic agents compared to those receiving hormonal agents.

CONCLUSION

Time spent traveling and receiving inpatient care represented a substantial burden to patients with MBC, with variation in time by treatment type and administration method.

Patient experiences of decision-making in the treatment of spinal metastases: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of spinal metastases the risks of surgery must be balanced against potential benefits, particularly in light of limited life-expectancy. Patient experiences and preferences regarding decision-making in this context are not well explored.

PURPOSE

We performed a qualitative study involving patients receiving treatment for spinal metastatic disease. We sought to understand factors that influenced decision-making around care for spinal metastases.

STUDY SETTING

Three tertiary academic medical centers.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We recruited patients presenting for treatment of spinal metastatic disease at one of three tertiary centers in Boston, MA.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We conducted semistructured interviews using a guide that probed participants' experiences with making treatment decisions.

METHODS

We performed a thematic analysis that produced a list of themes, subthemes, and statement explaining how the themes related to the study's guiding questions. Patients were recruited until thematic saturation was reached.

RESULTS

We interviewed 23 participants before reaching thematic saturation. The enormity of treatment decisions, and of the diagnosis of spinal metastases itself, shaped participant preferences for who should take responsibility for the decision and whether to accept treatments bearing greater risk of complications. Pre-existing participant beliefs about decision-making and about surgery interacted with the clinical context in a way that tended to promote accepting physician recommendations and delaying or avoiding surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of spinal metastatic disease played an outsized role in shaping participant preferences for agency in treatment decision-making. Further research should address strategies to support patient understanding of treatment options in clinical contexts-such as spinal metastases-characterized by ominous underlying disease and high-risk, often urgent interventions.

Importance of quality-of-life priorities and preferences surrounding treatment decision making in patients with cancer and oncology clinicians

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when a patient partners with their oncologist to integrate personal preferences and values into treatment decisions. A key component of SDM is the elicitation of patient preferences and values, yet little is known about how and when these are elicited, communicated, prioritized, and documented within clinical encounters.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study evaluated nationwide data collected by CancerCare to better understand current patterns of SDM between patients and their oncology clinicians. Patient surveys included questions about the importance of quality-of-life preferences and discussions regarding quality-of-life priorities with their clinicians. Clinician surveys included questions about the discussion of quality-of-life priorities and preferences with patients, the effect of quality-of-life priorities on treatment recommendations, and quality-of-life priority documentation in practice.

RESULTS

Patient survey completers (n = 320; 33% response rate) were predominantly women (95%), had a diagnosis of breast cancer (59%), or were receiving active cancer treatment (59%). Clinician survey completers (n = 112; 5% response rate) predominately identified as hematologists or oncologists (66%). Although 67% of clinicians reported knowing their patients' personal quality-of-life priorities and preferences before finalizing treatment plans, only 37% of patients reported that these discussions occurred before treatment initiation. Most patients (95%) considered out-of-pocket expenses important during treatment planning, yet only 59% reported discussing out-of-pocket expenses with their clinician before finalizing treatment plans. A majority of clinicians (52%) considered clinic questionnaires as feasible to document quality-of-life priorities and preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and clinicians reported that preferences related to quality-of-life should be considered in treatment decision making, yet barriers to SDM, preference elicitation, and documentation remain.

Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308)

INTRODUCTION

Providing balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment preferences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningioma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communication and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argumentation theory.

RESULTS

Practitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several challenges that practitioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The findings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncology trials can be challenging to recruit to, especially those that compare treatment versus monitoring. Conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences can enhance recruitment and patient understanding. This study focused on the challenges that practitioners encounter in trying to use such communication strategies and how practitioners may inadvertently impede patient recruitment and informed decision making. This article provides recommendations to support practitioners in balancing the content and presentation of trial management pathways. The results can inform training to optimize communication, especially for neuro-oncology trials and trials comparing markedly different management pathways.

"I'd Want to Know, Because a Year's Not a Long Time to Prepare for a Death": Role of Prognostic Information in Shared Decision Making among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Context: Increasing emphasis on patient-centered care has led to highlighted importance of shared decision making, which better aligns medical decisions with patient care preferences. Effective shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment requires prognostic understanding, without which patients may receive treatment inconsistent with personal preferences. Objectives: To assess MBC patient and provider perspectives on the role of prognostic information in treatment decision making. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with MBC patients and community oncologists and separate focus groups involving lay navigators, nurses, and academic oncologists. Qualitative analysis utilized a content analysis approach that included a constant comparative method to generate themes. Results: Of 20 interviewed patients with MBC, 30% were African American. Academic oncologists were mostly women (60%), community oncologists were all Caucasian, and nurses were all women and 28% African American. Lay navigators were all African American and predominately women (86%). Five emergent themes were identified. (1) Most patients wanted prognostic information but differed in when they wanted to have this conversation, (2) Emotional distress and discomfort was a critical reason for not discussing prognosis, (3) Religious beliefs shaped preferences for prognostic information, (4) Health care professionals differed on prognostic information delivery timing, and (5) Providers acknowledged that an individualized approach taking into account patient values and preferences would be beneficial. Conclusion: Most MBC patients wanted prognostic information, yet varied in when they wanted this information. Understanding why patients want limited or unrestricted prognostic information can inform oncologists' efforts toward shared decision making.

Tailoring chemotherapy supply according to patients' preferences: a quantitative method in colorectal cancer care

Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a discrete choice experiment with patients affected by colorectal cancer to understand their preferences for different attributes of the chemotherapy supply. Our overall goal is to provide evidence on the relative importance of each attribute in order to tailor chemotherapy supply according to patients' priorities in the design or reorganization processes of cancer services.Methods: Focus groups were used to identify the attributes and levels for the discrete choice experiment. The attributes were: continuity of care, understanding, information, treatment choice, and time for therapy. Respondents were asked to choose between two mutually exclusive hypothetical alternatives of chemotherapy supply. Patients completed the discrete choice experiment along with the health-related quality of life and patients' satisfaction questions. Conditional and mixed logistic models were used to analyses the data.Results: Patients with colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy (n = 76) completed the survey. The most important aspects of chemotherapy supply were: "Providing detailed and complete information" and "High ability in understanding" patients. Preferences were also influenced by the availability of a trusted doctor. Except for one attribute (waiting time for therapy), all other characteristics significantly influenced respondents' preferences.Conclusions: Results should support a policy of strengthening medical doctors' capabilities to communicate with patients, providing them complete information and involving them in the clinical decisions. Specifically, the findings should be used to improve the current provision of cancer care by identifying areas of preferred intervention from the perspectives of patients in order to tailor the service supply accordingly.

The "Preparation for Shared Decision-Making" Tool for Women With Advanced Breast Cancer: Qualitative Validation Study

Background

The range of decisions and considerations that women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) face can be overwhelming and difficult to manage. Research shows that most patients prefer a shared decision-making (SDM) approach as it provides them with the opportunity to be actively involved in their treatment decisions. The current engagement of these patients in their clinical decisions is suboptimal. Moreover, implementing SDM into routine clinical care can be challenging as patients may not always feel adequately prepared or may not expect to be involved in the decision-making process.

Objective

Avalere Health developed the Preparation for Shared Decision-Making (PFSDM) tool to help patients with ABC feel prepared to communicate with their clinicians and engage in decision making aligned with their preferences. The goal of this study was to validate the tool for its acceptability and usability among this patient population.

Methods

We interviewed a diverse group of women with ABC (N=30). Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and double coded by using NVivo. We assessed 8 themes to understand the acceptability and usability of the tool.

Results

Interviewees expressed that the tool was acceptable for preparing patients for decision making and would be useful for helping patients know what to expect in their care journey. Interviewees also provided useful comments to improve the tool.

Conclusions

This validation study confirms the acceptability and usability of the PFSDM tool for women with ABC. Future research should assess the feasibility of the tool’s implementation in the clinical workflow and its impact on patient outcomes.