A Decision Tree Model to Help Treatment Decision-Making for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Multi-center, Long-Term Follow-up Study in a Large Chinese Cohort.

Chinese population have a high prevalence of unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA). Clinical and imaging risk factors predicting UIA growth or rupture are poorly understood in the Chinese population due to the lack of large-scale longitudinal studies, and the treatment decision for UIA patients was challenging. Develop a decision tree (DT) model for UIA instability, and validate its performance in multi-center studies. Single-UIA patients from two prospective, longitudinal multicenter cohort studies were analyzed, and set as the development cohort and validation cohort. The primary endpoint was UIA instability (rupture, growth, or morphological change). A DT was established within the development cohort and validated within the validation cohort. The performance of clinicians in identifying unstable UIAs before and after the help of the DT was compared using the area under curve (AUC). The development cohort included 1270 patients with 1270 UIAs and a follow-up duration of 47.2 ± 15.5 months. Aneurysm instability occurred in 187 (14.7%) patients. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed hypertension (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95%CI, 1.14-2.09), aspect ratio (HR, 1.22; 95%CI, 1.17-1.28), size ratio (HR, 1.31; 95%CI, 1.23-1.41), bifurcation configuration (HR, 2.05; 95%CI, 1.52-2.78) and irregular shape (HR, 4.30; 95%CI, 3.19-5.80) as factors of instability. In the validation cohort (n = 106, 12 was unstable), the DT model incorporating these factors was highly predictive of UIA instability (AUC, 0.88 [95%CI, 0.79-0.97]), and superior to existing UIA risk scales such as PHASES and ELAPSS (AUC, 0.77 [95%CI, 0.67-0.86] and 0.76 [95%CI, 0.66-0.86], P < 0.001). Within all 1376 single-UIA patients, the use of the DT significantly improved the accuracy of junior neurosurgical clinicians to identify unstable UIAs (AUC from 0.63 to 0.82, P < 0.001). The DT incorporating hypertension, aspect ratio, size ratio, bifurcation configuration and irregular shape was able to predict UIA instability better than existing clinical scales in Chinese cohorts. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: IARP-CP cohort were included (unique identifier: ChiCTR1900024547. Published July 15, 2019. Completed December 30, 2020), with 100-Project phase-I cohort (unique identifier: NCT04872842, Published May 5, 2021. Completed November 8, 2022) as the development cohort. The 100-Project phase-II cohort (unique identifier: NCT05608122. Published November 8, 2022) as the validation cohort.

Patients' Preferences for Adjuvant Osimertinib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Complete Surgical Resection: What Makes It Worth It to Patients?

BACKGROUND: The ADAURA trial confirmed adjuvant Osimertinib's efficacy in EGFR-mutated Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet the limited mature overall survival (OS) data at approval poses a challenge. This study explores patient preferences in the absence of complete OS information, hypothesizing that disease-free survival (DFS) benefit alone may influence adjuvant Osimertinib pursuit. METHODS: At Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Jan-Dec 2021), patients assessed for adjuvant therapy received a survey probing OS and DFS preferences. Scenarios were (a) minimum OS justifying Osimertinib, (b) minimum DFS improvement justifying 3-years of adjuvant Osimertinib, (c) minimum 5-year DFS percent change, and (d) minimum OS justifying copay changes. Results were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 524 NSCLC patients, 51 participated. Scenario 1 saw 56% requiring a 12-month OS benefit for Osimertinib justification. In scenario 2, 72% deemed a 12-month DFS benefit sufficient. Scenario 3 revealed 31% opting out despite a 10% OS increase. Scenario 4 showed varied willingness to pay, with 33% unwilling to any shoulder copayment even with a 10-year OS benefit. CONCLUSION: This study explores patient preferences without complete OS data, revealing diverse thresholds. Factors include employment, education, and willingness to pay. Findings underscore shared decision-making importance. Limitations include sample size, potential biases, and regional focus; larger cohorts are needed for validation.

Influential Factors Impacting Treatment Decision-making and Decision Regret in Patients with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

CONTEXT: Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied. OBJECTIVE: Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as "a decision driver", "associated", "influential", or "significant" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key. CONCLUSIONS: The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor's recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

Comparative analysis of treatment decision-making in patients with localized prostate and cervical cancer: what influences receiving surgery or radiotherapy?

PURPOSE: This study focused on identifying the factors influencing the decision-making process in patients with localized prostate and cervical cancer in Japan and specifically examining the choice between surgery and radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients with specific cancer stages registered with a healthcare research company for whom radical surgery or radiotherapy was equally effective and recommended participated in this cross-sectional online survey. RESULTS: The responses of 206 and 231 patients with prostate and cervical cancer, respectively, revealed that both groups relied heavily on the physicians' recommendations (prostate: odds ratio (OR) = 40.3, p < 0.001; cervical: OR = 5.59, p < 0.001) and their impression of radiotherapy (prostate: OR = 9.22, p < 0.001; cervical: OR = 2.31, p < 0.001). Factors such as hypertension (OR = 6.48, p < 0.05), diabetes mellitus (OR = 9.68, p < 0.05), employment status (OR = 0.08, p < 0.01), and impressions of surgery (OR = 0.14, p < 0.01) also played a significant role in patients with prostate cancer. In contrast, the specialty of the physician (OR = 4.55, p < 0.05) proposing the treatment influenced the decision-making process of patients with cervical cancer. Information sources varied between the two groups: patients with prostate cancer were more inclined towards printed materials, whereas patients with cervical cancer were more inclined towards interpersonal relationships. CONCLUSION: Although several limitations, such as the sample and recall bias, were noted, this study emphasizes the role of psychosocial factors in the decision-making process and the requirement for tailored information sources.

The role of time in involving patients with cancer in treatment decision making: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Time is often perceived as a barrier to shared decision making in cancer care. It remains unclear how time functions as a barrier and how it could be most effectively utilized. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to describe the role of time in patient involvement, and identify strategies to overcome time-related barriers. METHODS: Seven databases were searched for any publications on patient involvement in cancer treatment decisions, focusing on how time is used to involve patients, the association between time and patient involvement, and/or strategies to overcome time-related barriers. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to select publications and extract data. One coder thematically analyzed data, a second coder checked these analyses. RESULTS: The analysis of 26 eligible publications revealed four themes. Time was a resource 1) to process the diagnosis, 2) to obtain/process/consider information, 3) for patients and clinicians to spend together, and 4) for patient involvement in making decisions. DISCUSSION: Time is a resource throughout the treatment decision-making process, and generic strategies have been proposed to overcome time constraints. PRACTICE VALUE: Clinicians could co-create decision-making timelines with patients, spread decisions across several consultations, share written information with patients, and support healthcare redesigns that allocate the necessary time.

From algorithms to action: improving patient care requires causality.

In cancer research there is much interest in building and validating outcome prediction models to support treatment decisions. However, because most outcome prediction models are developed and validated without regard to the causal aspects of treatment decision making, many published outcome prediction models may cause harm when used for decision making, despite being found accurate in validation studies. Guidelines on prediction model validation and the checklist for risk model endorsement by the American Joint Committee on Cancer do not protect against prediction models that are accurate during development and validation but harmful when used for decision making. We explain why this is the case and how to build and validate models that are useful for decision making.

Study protocol for two stepped-wedge interventional trials evaluating the effects of holistic information technology-based patient-oriented management in older multimorbid patients with cancer: The GERONTE trials.

INTRODUCTION: Current hospital-based care pathways are generally single-disease centred. As a result, coexisting morbidities are often suboptimally evaluated and managed, a deficiency becoming increasingly apparent among older patients who exhibit heterogeneity in health status, functional abilities, frailty, and other geriatric impairments. To address this issue, our study aims to assess a newly developed patient-centred care pathway for older patients with multimorbidity and cancer. The new care pathway was based on currently available evidence and co-designed by end-users including health care professionals, patients, and informal caregivers. Within this care pathway, all healthcare professionals involved in the care of older patients with multimorbidity and cancer will form a Health Professional Consortium (HPC). The role of the HPC will be to centralise oncologic and non-oncologic treatment recommendations in accordance with the patient's priorities. Moreover, an Advanced Practice Nurse will act as case-manager by being the primary point of contact for the patient, thus improving coordination between specialists, and by organising and leading the consortium. Patient monitoring and the HPC collaboration will be facilitated by digital communication tools designed specifically for this purpose, with the added benefit of being customisable for each patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GERONTE study is a prospective international, multicentric study consisting of two stepped-wedge trials performed at 16 clinical sites across three European countries. Each trial will include 720 patients aged 70 years and over with a new or progressive cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate) and at least one moderate or severe multimorbidity. The patients in the intervention group will receive the new care pathway whereas patients in the control group will receive usual oncologic care. DISCUSSION: GERONTE will evaluate whether this kind of holistic, patient-oriented healthcare management can improve quality of life (primary outcome) and other valuable endpoints in older patients with multimorbidity and cancer. An ancillary study will assess in depth the socio-economic impact of the intervention and deliver concrete implementation guidelines for the GERONTE intervention care pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: FRONE: NCT05720910 TWOBE: NCT05423808.

Evaluation of YouTube As A Source For Graves' Disease Information: Is High-Quality Guideline-Based Information Available?

Objective: To understand the quality of informational Graves' disease (GD) videos on YouTube for treatment decision-making quality and inclusion of American Thyroid Association (ATA) treatment guidelines. Study Design: Cross-sectional cohort. Setting: Informational YouTube videos with subject matter "Graves' Disease treatment." Method: The top 50 videos based on our query were assessed using the DISCERN instrument. This validated algorithm discretely rates treatment-related information from excellent (≥4.5) to very poor (<1.9). Videos were also screened for ATA guideline inclusion. Descriptive statistics were used for cohort characterization. Univariate and multivariate linear regressions characterized factors associated with DISCERN scores. Significance was set at P < .05. Results: The videos featured 57,513.43 views (SD = 162,579.25), 1054.70 likes (SD = 2329.77), and 168.80 comments (SD = 292.97). Most were patient education (52%) or patient experience (24%). A minority (40%) were made by thyroid specialists (endocrinologists, endocrine surgeons, or otolaryngologists). Under half did not mention all 3 treatment modalities (44%), and 54% did not mention any ATA recommendations. Overall, videos displayed poor reliability (mean = 2.26, SD = 0.67), treatment information quality (mean = 2.29, SD = 0.75), and overall video quality (mean = 2.47, SD = 1.07). Physician videos were associated with lower likes, views, and comments (P < .001) but higher DISCERN reliability (P = .015) and overall score (P = .019). Longer videos (P = .015), patient accounts (P = .013), and patient experience (P = .002) were associated with lower scores. Conclusion: The most available GD treatment content on YouTube varies significantly in the quality of medical information. This may contribute to suboptimal disease understanding, especially for patients highly engaged with online health information sources.

Treatment of olecranon fractures in older individuals: a cross-sectional survey of surgeon treatment preferences.

Background: With an aging population, the incidence of olecranon fractures in older patients is increasing. The standard of care has traditionally included operative management for displaced fractures. Recent literature has called this standard of care into question. Older patients may be at increased risk of operative complications and may have satisfactory functional outcomes with nonoperative management. Given recently evolving evidence, the current treatment preferences of orthopedic surgeons for older patients with displaced olecranon fractures are unknown. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional survey of Canadian orthopedic surgeons via e-mail invitation and online survey form to determine treatment preferences for patients aged 65-75 and >75 years with simple displaced and comminuted displaced stable olecranon fractures. Respondents reviewed representative images and were asked to indicate their preferred treatment based on patient age. We also asked respondents to indicate their perceived importance of 11 patient factors on treatment decision-making. Results: We received 200 responses (33.8% response rate). For patients aged 65-75 years with simple displaced fractures, surgeons preferred tension-band wiring (n = 110, 56%) to plating (n = 82, 42%, P = .005), while only 3% (n = 5) preferred nonoperative treatment. For patients aged >75 years with simple displaced fractures, surgeons preferred operative (n = 144, 73%) to nonoperative management (n = 51, 26%; P < .01) with either tension-band wiring (n = 77, 39%) or plating (n = 67, 34%). In these patients, early range of motion (n = 35, 18%) was preferred to immobilization (n = 16, 8%; P = .004). For comminuted fractures, plate fixation was preferred for patients aged 65-75 years (n = 189, 95%) and >75 years (n = 131, 68%). In patients aged >75 years, this was followed by early range of motion (n = 35, 18%) and immobilization (n = 24, 13%). Of the 11 factors surveyed, participation in high-intensity activities (mean rank = 9.4), independent living (mean rank = 8.8), and disrupted extensor mechanism (mean rank = 8.3) were ranked most highly for increasing likelihood of surgical treatment. Conclusion: In patients aged 65 to 75 years, operative management is favored by most surgeons, with tension-band wiring preferred over plating for simple displaced fractures. In patients aged >75 years, operative management is again preferred by most respondents for simple and comminuted fractures. Despite operative preferences, there is a paucity of quality evidence to guide treatment decision-making, particularly in patients aged >75 years.

Patient readiness for shared decision making about treatment: Conceptualisation and development of the ReadySDM.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness. METHODS: We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM ) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision-making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self-awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self-efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20-item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting. CONCLUSION: We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM . The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire.

Associations Between Risk Perception and HPV Knowledge and Vaccine Uptake: Highlighting the LGBTQ+ Population.

INTRODUCTION: Gay and bisexual males and other LGBTQ+ communities are more frequently exposed to factors associated with an increased risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) acquisition. Vaccination is critical to protect against HPV+ head and neck cancer (HNC). We characterized the association of perceived level of risk of contraction with HPV knowledge, and vaccine decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort. SETTING: LGBTQ and general survey Reddit forums (control). METHODS: A survey was shared amongst the online forums. Descriptive statistics characterized the data. Multivariable logistic regression was used to understand factors associated with vaccination, self-perceived high risk, and knowledge of HPV + HNC. RESULTS: Of 718 respondents, most were female (41.09%), Caucasian (59.89%), college-educated (33.01%), and insured (77.15%) with a mean age of 30.75 years. Half were vaccinated (49.16%), with most unvaccinated endorsing interest (60.58%). Few dependents were vaccinated (25.91%), with interest in vaccination among parents of unvaccinated children (38.58%). Knowledge of HIV's association with HPV (62.95%), HPV causing HNC (55.57%), and the vaccine's efficacy against HNC (55.57%) was also moderate. Identifying female (P = .042), a self-perceived high-risk (P < .001), and having vaccinated children (P < .001) increased vaccination likelihood; transgender (P = .021), or lesbian or gay sexual identity (P < .001) decreased likelihood. Personal HNC diagnosis (P < .001), self-vaccination (P < .001), having vaccinated children (P < .001), having anal sex (P = .001) or no knowledge of past HPV status (P < .001) increased likelihood of high self-perceived risk. CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve public education regarding the association between HPV and HNC and vaccination efficacy are required to better inform vaccine decision-making among individuals at risk for HPV infection.

Experiences of treatment decision-making among older newly diagnosed adults with acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Treatment decision-making for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is complex and preference-sensitive. We sought to understand the patient experience of treatment decision-making to identify specific challenges in shared decision-making to improve clinical care and to inform the development of directed interventions. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with newly diagnosed older (≥ 60 years) adults with AML and their caregivers following a semi-structured interview guide at a public safety net academic hospital. Interviews were digitally recorded, and qualitative thematic analysis was employed to synthesize findings. RESULTS: Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted. Age ranged from 62 to 78 years. Patients received intermediate- (50%) or high-intensity (44%) chemotherapy or best supportive care only (6%). Six themes of patient experiences emerged from the analysis: patients (1) felt overwhelmed and in shock at diagnosis, (2) felt powerless to make decisions, (3) felt rushed and unprepared to make a treatment decision, (4) desired to follow oncologist recommendations for treatment, (5) balanced multiple competing factors during treatment decision-making, and (6) desired for ongoing engagement into their care planning. Patients reported many treatment outcomes that were important in treatment decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with newly diagnosed AML feel devastated and in shock at their diagnosis which appears to contribute to a feeling of being overwhelmed, unprepared, and rushed into treatment decisions. Because no one factor dominated treatment decision-making for all patients, the use of strategies to elicit individual patient preferences is critical to inform treatment decisions. Interventions are needed to reduce distress and increase a sense of participation in treatment decision-making.

Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate.

Objectives: To develop an online treatment decision aid (OTDA) to assist patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and their partners in making treatment decisions. Patients and methods: Navigate, an OTDA for LRPC, was rigorously co-designed by patients with a confirmed diagnosis or at risk of LRPC and their partners, clinicians, researchers and website designers/developers. A theoretical model guided the development process. A mixed methods approach was used incorporating (1) evidence for essential design elements for OTDAs; (2) evidence for treatment options for LRPC; (3) an iterative co-design process involving stakeholder workshops and prototype review; and (4) expert rating using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Three co-design workshops with potential users (n = 12) and research and web-design team members (n = 10) were conducted. Results from each workshop informed OTDA modifications to the OTDA for testing in the subsequent workshop. Clinician (n = 6) and consumer (n = 9) feedback on usability and content on the penultimate version was collected. Results: The initial workshops identified key content and design features that were incorporated into the draft OTDA, re-workshopped and incorporated into the penultimate OTDA. Expert feedback on usability and content was also incorporated into the final OTDA. The final OTDA was deemed comprehensive, clear and appropriate and met all IPDAS criteria. Conclusion: Navigate is an interactive and acceptable OTDA for Australian men with LRPC designed by men for men using a co-design methodology. The effectiveness of Navigate in assisting patient decision-making is currently being assessed in a randomised controlled trial with patients with LRPC and their partners.

Examining emergency departments practices on advance care directives and medical treatment decision making using the victorian emergency minimum dataset.

INTRODUCTION: Existence of Advance Care Planning (ACP) documents including contact details of Medical Treatment Decision Makers (MTDM), are essential patient care records that support Emergency Department (ED) clinicians in implementing treatment concordant with patients' expressed wishes. Based upon previous findings, we conducted a statewide study to evaluate the performance of Victorian public hospital emergency departments on reporting of availability of records for ACP. METHOD: The study is a quantitative retrospective observational comparative design based upon ED tier levels as defined by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) for the calendar year 2021. RESULTS: Of 1.8 million total Victorian ED attendances, 15,222 patients had an ACP alert status recorded. Of these, 7296 were aged ≥ 65 years (study group). Of the thirty-one public EDs that submitted data, 65 % were accredited and assigned a level of service tier. The presence of ACP alerts positively correlated to location, tier level, age and gender (MANOVA wilk's; p < 0.001, value=.981, F = (12, 15,300), partial ƞ2 = .006, observed power = 1.0 = 95.919). CONCLUSION: The identified rate of ACP reporting is low. Strategies to improve the result include synchronising ACP (generated at different points) electronically, staff education, training and further validation of the data at the sending and receiving agencies.

Factors influencing older women's decision-making related to treatment of operable breast cancer: A qualitative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: There is variation in practice in the treatment of older women with breast cancer. International guidelines highlight the importance of patient autonomy in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study is to identify factors which influence decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer, which will enable us to further understand how to support these patients. METHODS: Systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines was performed to identify factors which influence treatment decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer. Medline, Web of Science and SCOPUS were searched. RESULTS: The search yielded 5840 results; 13 articles met the inclusion criteria and reported on a total of 1118 women. Thematic analysis identified three key themes in which decision-making factors could be categorised. These were healthcare-related factors, patient-related factors and impact of treatment. Healthcare-related factors included communication with clinicians and provision of information. Patient-related factors were age, pre-existing knowledge, preconceptions of breast cancer and treatment, decision-making style and co-morbidities. The impact of treatment considerations included body image and effect on quality of life. Decision-making style was frequently reported; older women did not demonstrate one preferred style. CONCLUSIONS: The findings have highlighted the complex interplay of factors which influence how older women make breast cancer treatment-decisions. Clinicians should have an awareness of the factors highlighted to maximise their ability to provide support and personalised care to older women with breast cancer whilst treatment decisions are made.

Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS).

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC); however, limited data on determinants of AS adoption exist, particularly among Black men. METHODS: Black and White newly diagnosed (from January 2014 through June 2017) patients with LRPC ≤75 years of age were identified through metro-Detroit and Georgia population-based cancer registries and completed a survey evaluating factors influencing AS uptake. RESULTS: Among 1688 study participants, 57% chose AS (51% of Black participants, 61% of White) over definitive treatment. In the unadjusted analysis, patient factors associated with initial AS uptake included older age, White race, and higher education. However, after adjusting for covariates, none of these factors was significant predictors of AS uptake. The strongest determinant of AS uptake was the AS recommendation by a urologist (adjusted prevalence ratio, 6.59, 95% CI, 4.84-8.97). Other factors associated with the decision to undergo AS included a shared patient-physician treatment decision, greater prostate cancer knowledge, and residence in metro-Detroit compared with Georgia. Conversely, men whose decision was strongly influenced by the desire to achieve "cure" or "live longer" with treatment and those who perceived their LRPC diagnosis as more serious were less likely to choose AS. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary sample, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed LRPC chose AS. Although the input from their urologists was highly influential, several patient decisional and psychological factors were independently associated with AS uptake. These data shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among patients with LRPC.

Physician knowledge, practice patterns, and barriers encountered regarding guideline-concordant use of bone modifying agents for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend bone-modifying agents (BMAs) for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastasis, but not for castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). Physicians beliefs and practices regarding BMA therapy are poorly understood. METHODS: This was a qualitative interview study with embedded Likert-scale elements. Study participants were physicians who treat prostate cancer, located within an academic cancer center or an affiliated community-based network. Participants were asked about their experiences and practice patterns regarding BMA therapy. Participants used Likert-scale items to identify the most common barriers to guideline-concordant BMA use and the most effective potential interventions. Participants were subsequently asked to rank the three most common barriers and the three most effective interventions to reduce underuse (for CRPC) and overuse (for CSPC). RESULTS: Nineteen physicians were invited and 15 participated; one physician did not answer some questions as outside of their practice scope. All were aware of the recommendation for BMAs in CRPC. 14% (2/14) were unaware of the recommendation against BMA use for CSPC; an additional 29% (4/14) believed that BMA use could be appropriate for CSPC depending on the metastatic disease burden. 36% (5/14) were unaware of recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density. The most common barriers (occurring "often" or "sometimes") were obtaining dental clearance (11/15) and insufficient clinic time (6/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce underuse were dental navigation (11/15) and electronic medical record (EMR)-based guidance (9/15). The interventions identified as most effective to reduce overuse were peer-to-peer education (14/15) and EMR-based guidance (13/15). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of guideline recommendations for screening and treatment of low bone mineral density and against BMA use for CSPC was good, but not complete. Dental navigation, peer-to-peer education, and EMR-based guidance were preferred intervention strategies to improve guideline-concordant use.

Physician frontline treatment preferences for stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma: the real-world US CONNECT study.

Aim: To understand US physicians' frontline (1L) treatment preferences/decision-making for stage III/IV classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Materials & methods: Medical oncologists and/or hematologists (≥2 years' practice experience) who treat adults with stage III/IV cHL were surveyed online (October-November 2020). Results: Participants (n = 301) most commonly considered trial efficacy/safety data and national guidelines when selecting 1L cHL treatments. Most physicians (91%) rated overall survival (OS) as the most essential attribute when selecting 1L treatment. Variability was seen among regimen selection for hypothetical newly diagnosed patients, with OS cited as the most common reason for regimen selection. Conclusion: While treatment selection varied based on patient characteristics, US physicians consistently cited OS as the top factor considered when selecting a 1L treatment for cHL.

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is a type of cancer that grows in lymph nodes. The researchers created a survey to assess how doctors in the USA choose medicine to treat patients who are newly diagnosed with an advanced stage of cHL (stage 3 or 4 out of 4 stages). We surveyed 301 doctors who treat patients with cHL. When choosing a medicine to treat cHL, most doctors said they consider results from research studies, how well the medicine works, information on the medicine's safety and recommendations in official guidelines. Most doctors said that overall survival (how long the patient survives after being diagnosed with cHL) is the most important outcome they consider when choosing a medicine to treat cHL. During the survey, doctors saw four unique patient profiles. These profiles differed in age, disease stage (how far along the cHL is) and other illnesses the patient has. While medicine choice was different across profiles, overall survival was still the reason for choosing each individual patient's medicine. These survey results show that doctors in the USA highly consider overall survival when choosing medicine for patients newly diagnosed with an advanced stage of cHL.

Determining patient preferences for the medical management of osteoporosis using conjoint analysis.

We used conjoint analysis-a method that assesses complex decision making-to quantify patients' choices when selecting an osteoporosis therapy. While 60% of people prioritized medication efficacy when deciding among treatments, the remaining 40% highly valued factors other than efficacy, suggesting the need for personalized shared decision-making tools. INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to examine patient decision-making surrounding osteoporosis medications using conjoint analysis. METHODS: We enrolled osteoporosis patients at an academic medical center to complete an online conjoint exercise which calculated each patient's relative importance score of 6 osteoporosis medication attributes (higher = greater relative importance in decision-making). We used latent class analysis to identify distinct segments of patients with similar choice patterns and then used logistic regression to determine if demographics and osteoporosis disease features were associated with latent class assignment. RESULTS: Overall, 304 participants completed the survey. The rank order of medication attributes by importance score was the following: efficacy at preventing hip fractures (accounted for 31.0% of decision making), mode of administration (17.5%); risk of serious side effects (16.6%); dose frequency (13.9%); efficacy at preventing spine fractures (12.5%); risk of non-serious side effects (8.4%). We found that 60.9% of the cohort prioritized medication efficacy as their top factor when selecting among the therapies. Being a college graduate, having stronger beliefs on the necessity of using medications for osteoporosis, and never having used osteoporosis medicines were the only factors associated with prioritizing medication efficacy for fracture prevention over the other factors in the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: While about 60% of patients prioritized efficacy when selecting an osteoporosis therapy, the remaining 40% valued other factors more highly. Furthermore, individual patient characteristics and clinical factors did not reliably predict patient decision making, suggesting that development and implementation of shared decision-making tools is warranted.

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. RESULTS: Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.