Major influencing factors on routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is highly relevant in oncology but rarely implemented in routine care. In a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the outcome evaluation of a theoretically and empirically based multi-component SDM implementation program did not show a statistically significant effect on patient-reported SDM uptake. Within this SDM implementation trial, a thorough a priori planned process evaluation was conducted. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing SDM implementation in the context of a multi-component SDM implementation program. METHODS: We conducted qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge SDM implementation trial. Qualitative data included interviews with nurses and physicians of participating departments, field notes by the study team, and meeting minutes. Data were analyzed via deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis on basis of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Transcripts of 107 interviews with 126 nurses and physicians, 304 pages of field note documentation, and 125 pages of meeting minutes were analyzed. Major factors influencing SDM implementation were found for all domains of the CFIR: a) four regarding characteristics of the individuals involved (e.g., perceived personal relevance, individual motivation to change), b) eleven regarding the inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement, networks and communication, available resources, compatibility with clinical practice), c) two regarding the outer setting (e.g., culture of health care delivery), d) eight regarding characteristics of the intervention (e.g., relative advantage, adaptability), and e) three regarding the implementation process (e.g., integration into existing structures). Furthermore, we found strong interrelations between several of the influencing factors within and between domains. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive process evaluation complements the outcome evaluation of the SDM implementation trial and adds to its interpretation. The identified influencing factors can be used for planning, conducting, and evaluating SDM implementation in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03393351.

Evaluation of different diagnostic tools for detection of acquired von Willebrand syndrome in patients with polycythemia vera or essential thrombocythemia.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are at increased risk of both thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications. Among the risk factors for bleeding is the development of an acquired qualitative von Willebrand factor defect with loss of larger VWF plasma multimers, resulting in acquired von Willebrand syndrome (aVWS). The diagnosis of aVWS is challenging, because no single automated test is sufficient to prove or exclude aVWS. We aimed to compare different diagnostic tools used for the detection of MPN-associated aVWS in daily practice. METHODS: Patients with polycythemia vera (PV) or essential thrombocythemia (ET), who had been routinely assessed for quantitative and qualitative abnormalities of plasma VWF, were retrospectively studied. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (37 with PV and 27 with ET) were analyzed. Using multimer analysis of plasma VWF, aVWS with a loss of VWF high-molecular-weight multimers was detected in 51.4 % and 55.6 % of PV and ET patients, respectively. A VWF: GPIbM/Ag threshold of <0.8 was defined as useful screening tool for aVWS, with acceptable sensitivity (88.2 %) and specificity (76.7 %) and good agreement with VWF multimer analysis (κ = 0.653). VWF:GPIbM/Ag showed better performance than VWF:CB/Ag. Regarding hematological parameters, there was no difference in hematocrit between patients with and without aVWS. However, leukocyte and platelet counts were significantly increased in the aVWS cohort. CONCLUSION: For the first time, we identified a VWF:GPIbM/Ag ratio of <0.8 as simple screening tool for aVWS in patients with PV or ET. This observation, however, should be confirmed in a larger patient cohort.

[What does the oncologist need from the pathologist in testicular cancer?] / Was der Onkologe vom Pathologen über Hodentumoren wissen muss.

BACKGROUND: Testicular type II germ cell tumours (GCTs) are an exemplar of a curable cancer and the most common malignancy in males aged ≤35 years. Even in metastatic stages, about 70% of patients can be cured by cisplatin-based chemotherapy and multimodal treatments. For patients failing platinum-based standard therapy, prognosis is poor and novel biomarkers and therapeutic options are urgently needed. OBJECTIVES: Discussion of desired histopathological information to guide urologists' and oncologists' decision making in the treatment of male GCTs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A narrative review of histopathological key features of male GCT tissue samples for clinical decision making. RESULTS: Histopathological workup is crucial to identify (i) a GCT origin in cancers of unknown primary based on isochromosome 12p (i(12p)) detection, (ii) the different type II GCT subtypes, and (iii) risk factors, i.e. lymphovascular or rete testis invasion, among others. Proper histopathological diagnosis is indispensable for guideline-endorsed, histology-driven, and risk-adapted treatment decisions, hereby helping to maintain treatment success while reducing the therapeutic burden and potential long-term sequelae of multimodal treatments. For refractory patients failing standard treatment options, prognosis remains poor and, so far, neither predictive or prognostic biomarkers nor novel therapeutic targets have been established. CONCLUSIONS: Close interaction and interdisciplinary discussion of histopathologic and radiologic findings and established risk factors including serum tumour markers is crucial for successful treatment including intensified strategies, where necessary, or prevention of overtreatment, where possible.