Decision Support and Shared Decision Making About Active Surveillance Versus Active Treatment Among Men Diagnosed with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: a Pilot Study

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence.

RESULTS

The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

Assessing the Risk of Adjuvant Radiotherapy Initiation Delays With Social Support Surveys

OBJECTIVE

In patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), initiating postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) greater than 42 days after surgery is associated with a higher risk of poor survival outcomes. Social support has been shown to modulate behaviors related to care-seeking and treatment adherence. In this study, we sought to determine the relationship between social support metrics and PORT delays.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single tertiary medical center.

METHODS

Patients with HNSCC who underwent primary surgical excision requiring PORT were prospectively enrolled. Patient-perceived social support metrics were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) at initial presurgical evaluation. Associations with PORT delays were evaluated via univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. An additional 28 patients were recommended to receive PORT but did not initiate treatment and were included for secondary analysis. All four subscales of the MOS-SSS (positive social interaction, affectionate support, tangible support, and emotional/informational support) were significantly associated with PORT initiation delays on univariable analysis. On multivariable analysis, the overall MOS-SSS score (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, 1.15-4.35, p = .028) was significantly associated with PORT initiation delays. On secondary analysis, lower tangible support was associated with a lack of PORT initiation (OR 1.63, 1.05-2.54, p = .028).

CONCLUSION

Social support metrics were significantly associated with PORT delays, which may help promote tighter scheduling and closer monitoring of high-risk patients.

The Impact of Within-Consultation and Preconsultation Decision Aids for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient Knowledge: Results of a Patient-Level Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of timing (either before or during initial consultation) on the effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) to support shared-decision-making in a minority-enriched sample of patients with localized prostate cancer using a patient-level randomized controlled trial design.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-randomized trial in urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, testing the effect of preconsultation and within-consultation DAs on patient knowledge elements deemed essential to make treatment decisions about localized prostate cancer, all measured immediately following the initial urology consultation using a 12-item Prostate Cancer Treatment Questionnaire (score range 0 [no questions correct] to 1 [all questions correct]), compared to usual care (no DAs).

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2018, 103 patients-including 16 Black/African American and 17 American Indian or Alaska Native men-were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 33) or usual care and a DA before (n = 37) or during (n = 33) the consultation. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, there were no statistically significant proportional score differences in patient knowledge between the preconsultation DA arm (0.06 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12, P = .1) or the within-consultation DA arm (0.04 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11, P = .3) and usual care.

CONCLUSION

In this trial oversampling minority men with localized prostate cancer, DAs presented at different times relative to the specialist consultation showed no improvement in patient knowledge above usual care.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD)

BACKGROUND

Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.

METHODS

The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.

RESULTS

Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Impact of a Genomic Test on Treatment Decision in a Predominantly African American Population With Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The Genomic Prostate Score (GPS), performed on biopsy tissue, predicts adverse outcome in prostate cancer (PCa) and has shown promise for improving patient selection for active surveillance (AS). However, its impact on treatment choice in high-risk populations of African Americans is largely unknown and, in general, the effect of the GPS on this difficult decision has not been evaluated in randomized trials.

METHODS

Two hundred men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network very low to low-intermediate PCa from three Chicago hospitals (70% Black, 16% college graduates) were randomly assigned at diagnosis to standard counseling with or without a 12-gene GPS assay. The primary end point was treatment choice at a second postdiagnosis visit. The proportion of patients choosing AS was compared, and multivariable modeling was used to estimate the effects of various factors on AS acceptance.

RESULTS

AS acceptance was high overall, although marginally lower in the intervention group (77% v 88%; P = .067), and lower still when men with inadequate specimens were excluded (P = .029). Men with lower health literacy who received a GPS were seven-fold less likely to choose AS compared with controls, whereas no difference was seen in men with higher health literacy (Pinteraction = .022). Among men with low-intermediate risk, 69% had GPS values consistent with unfavorable intermediate or high-risk cancer. AS choice was also independently associated with a family history of PCa and having health insurance.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to other studies, the net effect of the GPS was to move patients away from AS, primarily among men with low health literacy. These findings have implications for our understanding of how prognostic molecular assays that generate probabilities of poor outcome can affect treatment decisions in diverse clinical populations.

Shared decision making in high-grade glioma patients-a systematic review

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) has proven to be a valuable approach in different patient populations when treatment decisions are called for. Along the disease trajectory of high-grade glioma (HGG), patients are presented with a series of treatment decisions. At the same time, HGG patients often experience cognitive deterioration and reduced decision-making capacity. This study aimed to review the current knowledge about shared decision making from the perspective of the HGG patient.

Methods

Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Studies were reviewed against the inclusion criteria and assessed for methodological quality. Descriptive data from the included studies were extracted and a narrative synthesis of the findings was performed.

Results

The searches resulted in 5051 original records. Four studies involving 178 HGG patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The narrative synthesis revealed that most HGG patients in the included studies appreciated an SDM approach and that sufficient information and involvement increased patients’ emotional well-being. The use of a patient decision aid showed the potential to increase knowledge, decrease uncertainty, and affect the treatment decision making of HGG patients.

Conclusion

The results indicate that many HGG patients prefer an SDM approach and that SDM can lead patients toward improved emotional well-being. The evidence is weak, however, and firm conclusions and practice guidelines concerning SDM in HGG patients cannot be made. Future research is warranted to improve decision support for HGG patients.

Do radiation oncologists and urologists endorse decision aids for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: Results from a national survey

OBJECTIVE

The degree decision aids (DAs) can promote active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) remains poorly understood. Herein, we surveyed radiation oncologists (RO) and urologists (URO) about their attitudes towards DAs in counselling patients about AS for low-risk PCa.

METHODS

We conducted a national survey of RO (n = 915) and URO (n = 940) to assess their attitudes about DAs for AS for patients with low-risk PCa. Respondents were queried about their attitudes towards DAs and proportion of PCa patients managed with AS. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine physician characteristics related to attitudes about DAs.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 37.3% (n = 691). Most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that DAs helped patients with low-risk PCa make informed decisions (93.9%) and also increased patient support for AS (86.6%). Having a high volume of their low-risk PCa patients on AS (>15%) was associated with endorsing the statement that use of DAs increased the likelihood of recommending AS (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.00-4.61; p = .05) and being a URO versus a RO (OR: 3.37; 95% CI: 2.46-5.79; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most specialists view DAs as effective tools to facilitate more informed treatment decisions and facilitate greater use of AS in appropriately selected patients.

Framing the Clinical Encounter: Shared Decision-Making, Mammography Screening, and Decision Satisfaction

The study examines whether physicians' framing of clinical interactions is related to patient shared decision-making (SDM) satisfaction when using a clinical decision support tool (CDST) concerning mammographic screening. To answer this question, we combined (a) system log data from a CDST, (b) content coding of the physicians' message framing while using the CDST, and (c) a post-visit patient survey to assess SDM satisfaction concerning screening mammography. Results suggest that two types of message frames - consequence frames and numerical frames - moderated the relationship of the CDST on SDM satisfaction. When the CDST displayed low risk of breast cancer for a patient, physicians were able to improve the cognitive aspects of SDM satisfaction by framing the consequences of mammography screening in positive terms. However, when the physician delivered the numerical information in relative, rather than absolute terms, the patient's SDM satisfaction was reduced. Our study advances previous message framing effect research in health communication from experimental settings to clinical encounters. It also discusses the importance of delivering risk-congruent frames in clinical settings.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Interventions that Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Cancers with Active Surveillance as Treatment Option: a Systematic Review of Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Medical decisions concerning active surveillance are complex, especially when evidence on superiority of one of the treatments is lacking. Decision aids have been developed to facilitate shared decision-making on whether to pursue an active surveillance strategy. However, it is unclear how these decision aids are designed and which outcomes are considered relevant. The purpose of this study is to systematically review all decision aids in the field of oncological active surveillance strategies and outcomes used by authors to assess their efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

A search was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO Ovid and Google Scholar until June 2019. Eligible studies concerned interventions aiming to facilitate shared decision-making for patients confronted with several treatment alternatives, with active surveillance being one of the treatment alternatives. Twenty-three eligible articles were included. Twenty-one articles included patients with prostate cancer, one with thyroid cancer and one with ovarian cancer. Interventions mostly consisted of an interactive web-based decision aid format. After categorization of outcomes, seven main groups were identified: knowledge, involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, treatment preference, decision regret, anxiety and health-related outcomes. Although active surveillance has been implemented for several malignancies, interventions that facilitate shared decision-making between active surveillance and other equally effective treatment alternatives are scarce. Future research should focus on developing interventions for malignancies like rectal cancer and oesophageal cancer as well. The efficacy of interventions is mostly assessed using short-term outcomes.

Patient-Centered Approach to Develop the Patient's Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) Tool

Objectives. To describe the development of our Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) tool to aid patient-centered treatment decision among localized prostate cancer patients. Methods. We incorporated patient and provider experiences to develop a patient preference elicitation tool using adaptive conjoint analysis. Our patient-centered approach used systematic literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and provider focus groups to determine the treatment attributes most important for decision making. The resulting computer-based PreProCare tool was pilot tested in a clinical setting. Results. A systematic review of 56 articles published between 1995 and 2015 yielded survival, cancer recurrence, side effects, and complications as attributes of treatment options. We conducted one-on-one interviews with 50 prostate cancer survivors and 5 focus groups of providers. Patients reported anxiety, depression, treatment specifics, and caregiver burden as important for decision making. Providers identified clinical characteristics as important attribute. Input from stakeholders’ advisory group, physicians, and researchers helped finalize 15 attributes for our PreProCare preference assessment tool. Conclusion. The PreProCare tool was developed using a patient-centered approach and may be a feasible and acceptable preference clarification intervention for localized prostate cancer patients. The PreProCare tool may translate into higher participant engagement and self-efficacy, consistent with patients’ personal values.

Death in Trauma: The Role of the ACNP in Patient Advocacy and Familial Support in End-of-Life Care Decision-Making

The trauma acute care nurse practitioner (ACNP) participates in the care of critically-ill patients by utilizing his or her advanced clinical skills at the bedside and through communication with the interdisciplinary team, the patient, and the patient's family. Although the incidence of morbidity is decreasing in trauma, death can occur shortly after arrival to hospital, or in the days after initial injury, leading to the need for the unexpected conversation of end-of-life wishes with a patient or the patient's family. It is within the scope of the ACNP to facilitate these conversations, and it is recommended that ACNPs engage patients and their families in these conversations for overall improved patient outcomes. Many techniques exist to aid in this difficult decision-making process and may be useful to the trauma ACNP when having end-of-life discussions.