Concordance between influential adverse treatment outcomes and localized prostate cancer treatment decisions

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Rachel Pozzar1, Niya Xiong1, Fangxin Hong1, Christopher P. Filson2, Peter Chang3, Barbara Halpenny1, Donna L. Berry4
1Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA
2Emory University, Atlanta, USA
3Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA
4University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background Although treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer (LPC) are preference-sensitive, the extent to which individuals with LPC receive preference-concordant treatment is unclear. In a sample of individuals with LPC, the purpose of this study was to (a) assess concordance between the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and treatment choice; (b) determine whether receipt of a decision aid predicts higher odds of concordance; and (c) identify predictors of concordance from a set of participant characteristics and influential personal factors. Methods Participants reported the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and personal factors on treatment decisions at baseline. Preference-concordant treatment was defined as (a) any treatment if risk of adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence, (b) active surveillance if risk of adverse outcomes had a lot of influence, or (c) radical prostatectomy or active surveillance if risk of adverse bowel outcomes had a lot of influence and risk of other adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results Of 224 participants, 137 (61%) pursued treatment concordant with preferences related to adverse treatment outcomes. Receipt of a decision aid did not predict higher odds of concordance. Low tumor risk and age ≥ 60 years predicted higher odds of concordance, while attributing a lot of influence to the impact of treatment on recreation predicted lower odds of concordance. Conclusions Risk of potential adverse treatment outcomes may not be the foremost consideration of some patients with LPC. Assessment of the relative importance of patients’ stated values and preferences is warranted in the setting of LPC treatment decision making. Clinical trial registration: NCT01844999 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer: National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; 2021 [cited 04/29/2021]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html.

Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199(3):683–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095.

King MT, Viney R, Smith DP, Hossain I, Street D, Savage E, et al. Survival gains needed to offset persistent adverse treatment effects in localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(4):638–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.552.

Violette PD, Agoritsas T, Alexander P, Riikonen J, Santti H, Agarwal A, et al. Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(3):239–51.

Young GJ, Dutton SJ, Bollina P, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Hughes O, et al. Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received. Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):320–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.030.

Orom H, Biddle C, Underwood W, Nelson CJ, Homish DL. What is a “good” treatment decision? Decisional control, knowledge, treatment decision making, and quality of life in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(6):714–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16635633.

Taylor KL, Hoffman RM, Davis KM, Luta G, Leimpeter A, Lobo T, et al. Treatment preferences for active surveillance versus active treatment among men with low-risk prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(8):1240–50.

Lamers RE, Cuypers M, de Vries M, van de Poll-Franse LV, Ruud Bosch JL, Kil PJ. How do patients choose between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy? The effect of a preference-sensitive decision aid on treatment decision making for localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(2):37e9-e17.

Bosco JLF, Halpenny B, Berry DL. Personal preferences and discordant prostate cancer treatment choice in an intervention trial of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-123.

Scherr KA, Fagerlin A, Hofer T, Scherer LD, Holmes-Rovner M, Williamson LD, et al. Physician recommendations trump patient preferences in prostate cancer treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(1):56–69.

Johnson DC, Mueller DE, Deal AM, Dunn MW, Smith AB, Woods ME, et al. Integrating patient preference into treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer at the point of care. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1640–4.

Berry DL, Hong F, Blonquist TM, Halpenny B, Filson CP, Master VA, et al. Decision support with the personal patient profile-prostate: a multicenter randomized trial. J Urol. 2018;199(1):89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.076.

Berry DL, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Davison BJ, Ellis WJ, Lober WB, et al. Development and evaluation of the personal patient profile-prostate (P3P), a Web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(4):e67. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1576.

O'Connor A. Ottawa decision support framework 2006. Available from: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/ODSF.pdf.

Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.

Skyring TA, Mansfield KJ, Mullan JR. Factors affecting satisfaction with the decision-making process and decision regret for men with a new diagnosis of prostate cancer. Am J Mens Health. 2021;15(4):15579883211026812.

Sommers BD, Beard CJ, D’Amico AV, Kaplan I, Richie JP, Zeckhauser RJ. Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2008;113(8):2058–67.

Berry DL, Halpenny B, Hong F, Wolpin S, Lober WB, Russell KJ, et al. The personal patient profile-prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center randomized trial. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(7):1012–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.10.004.

Paudel R, Ferrante S, Qi J, Dunn RL, Berry DL, Semerjian A, et al. Patient preferences and treatment decisions for prostate cancer: results from a statewide urological quality improvement collaborative. Urology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.04.020.

Howard M, Bansback N, Tan A, Klein D, Bernard C, Barwich D, et al. Recognizing difficult trade-offs: values and treatment preferences for end-of-life care in a multi-site survey of adult patients in family practices. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):164.

Hunink MGM, Weinstein MC, Wittenberg E, Drummond MF, Pliskin JS, Wong JB, et al. Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 424.

Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Crump RT. Decision support for patients: Values clarification and preference elicitation. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1):50S-79S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712461182.

Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Russell KJ, Blasko JC, Bush N, Blumenstein B, et al. Factors that predict treatment choice and satisfaction with the decision in men with localized prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2006;5(3):219–26. https://doi.org/10.3816/CGC.2006.n.040.

Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Woods NF, Schwien C, Mullen KH, Yang C. Treatment decision-making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2003;21(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1078-1439(02)00209-0.

Orom H, Underwood W, Biddle C. Emotional distress increases the likelihood of undergoing surgery among men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;197(2):350–5.

Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Steiner JF. Patient treatment preferences in localized prostate carcinoma: the influence of emotion, misconception, and anecdote. Cancer. 2006;107(3):620–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22033.

Witteman HO, Julien AS, Ndjaboue R, Exe NL, Kahn VC, Angie Fagerlin A, et al. What helps people make values-congruent medical decisions? Eleven strategies tested across six studies. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(3):266–78.

Eastwood J-A, Doering L, Roper J, Hays RD. Uncertainty and health-related quality of life 1 year after coronary angiography. Am J Crit Care. 2008;17(3):232.

Becerra-Perez MM, Menear M, Turcotte S, Labrecque M, Legare F. More primary care patients regret health decisions if they experienced decisional conflict in the consultation: a secondary analysis of a multicenter descriptive study. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):156.

Xu J, Bock C, Janisse J, Schwartz KL, Triest J, Cher ML, et al. Urologists’ perceptions of active surveillance and their recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer patients. Urology. 2021;155:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.037.

Witteman HO, Gavaruzzi T, Scherer LD, Pieterse AH, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Chipenda Dansokho S, et al. Effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(6):760–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16634085.

Epstein R, Street R. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: Promoting healing and reducing suffering. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2007.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Thông tin tác giả