A patient decision aid for breast cancer patients deciding on their radiation treatment, no change in decisional conflict but better informed choices.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In selected breast cancer patients, radiation treatment (RT) lowers the recurrence risk, with minor or no improvement of survival. In these patients, the choice to undergo RT is considered a preference-sensitive decision. To facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) for this choice, a patient decision aid was made. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the PtDA on decisional conflict. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a multi-center pre- and post-intervention study (BRASA-trial). The first 214 patients made a choice without support of the PtDA; the subsequent 189 patients received a link to the PtDA. The primary endpoint was decisional conflict; secondary endpoints were perceived SDM and knowledge on treatment options. Patients filled out questionnaires immediately after, and three months after their decision. Data were analyzed with multi-level regression analysis. RESULTS: After correcting for the difference in age and educational level, the mean (±SD) decisional conflict for the intervention group (27.3 ± 11.4) was similar to the control group (26.8 ± 11.4; difference = 0.86, 95 %CI 1.67,3.36) three months after their decision. This also applied to perceived SDM. Patients exposed to the PtDA pursued additional treatment less often (45% vs 56%, odds ratio 0.59, 95 %CI 0.37,0.95) and scored significantly higher on the knowledge test (7.4 ± 2.5 vs 6.1 ± 2.7, corrected difference = 1.0, 95 %CI 0.50,1.49). There was no significant increase in consultation time. CONCLUSIONS: Handing out the PtDA was not associated with improved scores in decisional conflict or perceived SDM, but it was associated with a choice for less additional treatment and better knowledge about the treatment options.

Implementing a patient decision aid, a process evaluation of a large-scale pre- and post-implementation trial.

PURPOSE: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) have been reported to have a positive influence on patients making a health care decision in trials. Nevertheless, post-trial implementation is poor. The aim of this study is to explore patient, clinician, and organizational success factors for implementing a PtDA designed for breast cancer patients, facing a decision on their radiation treatment. METHODS: We performed a process evaluation within a multi-center pre- and post-implementation trial. The PtDA was incorporated as much as possible in the logistics of 13 participating centers. Tracking data were collected on PtDA use. Process characteristics were recorded by both clinicians and patients. A logistic regression method was applied to investigate which process characteristics were significantly related to the probability that patients logged in to the PtDA. RESULTS: 189 patients received the PtDA of whom140 (77%) used the PtDA. If patients received the link via the surgery department they were more likely to use the PtDA (OR 9.77 (1.28-74.51)), compared to patients that received the link via the radiation oncology department. If the report of the multidisciplinary team stated that radiation treatment "had to be discussed with the patient", patients were more likely to use the PtDA (OR 2.29 (1.12-4.71)). Educational level was not related to the probability of PtDA use. CONCLUSIONS: We accomplished a high level of PtDA use. Patients were more likely to use the PtDA if they received the link via the surgery department and if "to be discussed with the patient" was written in the multidisciplinary team report.

Risk communication in a patient decision aid for radiotherapy in breast cancer: How to deal with uncertainty?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patient decision aids for oncological treatment options, provide information on the effect on recurrence rates and/or survival benefit, and on side-effects and/or burden of different treatment options. However, often uncertainty exists around the probability estimates for recurrence/survival and side-effects which is too relevant to be ignored. Evidence is lacking on the best way to communicate these uncertainties. The aim of this study is to develop a method to incorporate uncertainties in a patient decision aid for breast cancer patients to support their decision on radiotherapy. METHODS: Firstly, qualitative interviews were held with patients and health care professionals. Secondly, in the development phase, thinking aloud sessions were organized with four patients and 12 health care professionals, individual and group-wise. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a pictograph illustrating the whole range of uncertainty for local recurrence risks, in combination with textual explanation that a more exact personalized risk would be given by their own physician. The pictograph consisted of 100 female icons in a 10 x 10 array. Icons with a stepwise gradient color indicated the uncertainty margin. The prevalence and severity of possible side-effects were explained using verbal labels. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel way of visualizing uncertainties in recurrence rates in a patient decision aid. The effect of this way of communicating risk uncertainty is currently being tested in the BRASA study (NCT03375801).

Long-term cosmetic changes after breast-conserving treatment of patients with stage I-II breast cancer and included in the EORTC 'boost versus no boost' trial.

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer treated with breast-conserving radiotherapy, the influence of the boost dose on cosmetic outcome after long-term follow-up is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 348 patients participating in the EORTC 'boost versus no boost' mega trial with a minimum follow-up of 6 years. Digitalised pictures were analysed using specific software, enabling quantification of seven relative asymmetry features associated with different aspects of fibrosis. RESULTS: After 3 years, we noted a statistically significantly poorer outcome for the boost patients for six features compared with those of the no boost patients. Up to 9 years of follow-up, results continued to worsen in the same magnitude for the both patient groups. We noted the following determinants for poorer outcome: (i) boost treatment, (ii) larger excision volumes, (iii) younger age, (iv) tumours located in the central lower quadrants of the breast and (v) a boost dose administered with photons. CONCLUSIONS: A boost dose worsens the change in breast appearance in the first 3 years. Moreover, the development of fibrosis associated with whole-breast irradiation, as estimated with the relative asymmetry features, is an ongoing process until (at least) 9 years after irradiation.