A clinician's guide for developing a prediction model: a case study using real-world data of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: With the increasing interest in treatment decision-making based on risk prediction models, it is essential for clinicians to understand the steps in developing and interpreting such models. METHODS: A retrospective registry of 20 Dutch hospitals with data on patients treated for castration-resistant prostate cancer was used to guide clinicians through the steps of developing a prediction model. The model of choice was the Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Using the exemplary dataset several essential steps in prediction modelling are discussed including: coding of predictors, missing values, interaction, model specification and performance. An advanced method for appropriate selection of main effects, e.g. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression, is described. Furthermore, the assumptions of Cox proportional hazard model are discussed, and how to handle violations of the proportional hazard assumption using time-varying coefficients. CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive detailed guide to bridge the gap between the statistician and clinician, based on a large dataset of real-world patients treated for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Treatment Preferences of Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Before and After Using a Web-based Decision Aid.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment preferences of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) before and after using a web-based decision aid (DA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2016 and January 2017 patients were invited to use a web-based LUTS/BPH DA. Treatment preferences (for lifestyle advices, medication or surgery) before and after DA use and responses on values clarification exercises were extracted from the DA. RESULTS: In total, 126 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-four percent (43/126) had not received any previous treatment and were eligible for (continuation of) lifestyle advices or to start medication, as initial treatment. The other 66% (83/126) did use medication and were eligible, either for continuing medication or to undergo surgery. Before being exposed to the DA, 67 patients (53%) were undecided and 59 patients (47%) indicated an initial treatment preference. Half of the patients who were initially undecided were able to indicate a preference after DA use (34/67, 51%). Of those with an initial preference, 80% (47/59) confirmed their initial preference after DA use. Five out of 7 values clarification exercises used in the DA were discriminative between final treatment preferences. In 79%, the treatment preferred after DA use matched the received treatment. Overall, healthcare providers were positive about DA feasibility. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a LUTS/BPH DA may help patients to confirm their initial treatment preference and support them in forming a treatment preference if they did not have an initial preference.

Development and usability testing of a multi-criteria value clarification methods for patients with localized prostate cancer.

Current guidelines for the development of decision aids recommend that they have to include a process for helping patients clarify their personal values, for example, by using values clarification methods. In this article, we extensively described the development process of the web-based values clarification method for patients with localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer based on the analytic hierarchy process. With analytic hierarchy process, the relative importance of different attributes of available treatments can be determined through series of pairwise comparisons of potential outcomes. Furthermore, analytic hierarchy process is able to use this information to present respondents with a quantitative overall treatment score and can therefore give actual treatment advice upon patients' request. The addition of this values clarification method to an existing web-based treatment decision aid for patients with localized prostate cancer is thought to improve the support offered to patients in their decision-making process and their decision quality.

Should we involve patients more actively? Perspectives of the multidisciplinary team on shared decision-making for older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perspectives of the multidisciplinary team concerning shared decision-making (SDM) in treatment decisions for older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey among Dutch healthcare providers was conducted to assess healthcare providers' perspectives on patient involvement in decision-making and the value of a decision aid (DA) in the decision-making process. Treatment recommendations were assessed using hypothetical cases in which providers were asked to evaluate their likelihood of pursuing listed treatment options. RESULTS: In total, 170 Dutch healthcare providers, including 82 urologists, 31 oncologists, and 57 oncology nurses completed the survey. Sixty-two percent of urologists, 65% of oncologists, and 51% of oncology nurses found that mCRPC patients take a passive role in decision-making and delegate treatment decisions to doctors due to advanced age (p = .45). Yet, 70% of urologists, 71% of oncologists, and 63% of oncology nurses agreed that mCRPC patients should be always involved in decision-making (p = .91). Fifty-two percent of urologists and 55% of oncologists stated that they are inadequately trained to apply SDM in clinical practice. Conversely, only 20% of oncology nurses believed that oncology nurses are inadequately trained. Fifty-four percent of all providers considered a DA suitable to support these patients and their healthcare providers in the decision-making process. All hypothetical cases showed variation in treatment recommendations among providers, with each of the five treatments ranging from extremely likely to extremely unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation of treatment recommendations observed among the multidisciplinary team suggests that mCRPC patients and their healthcare providers may benefit from implementation of informed SDM. Given the perceived passive role of older patients with mCRPC in decision-making, interventions to engage them are needed. With slightly more than half of respondents finding DAs useful to facilitate the decision-making process, development and implementation of a DA would be an interesting field of research.

Effectiveness of a web-based treatment decision aid for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based decision aid (DA), with values clarification exercises compared with usual care, for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2016 and January 2017, all new patients with LUTS/BPH who consulted the urologist were invited to use the DA and participate in this prospective questionnaire study. Patients who consulted the urologist between December 2015 and February 2016 served as controls. The DA was designed to support patients in making a well-informed treatment decision, corresponding with their personal preferences and values. Well-informed decision was measured by using a knowledge questionnaire. Value congruent decision was measured by the correspondence between responses on nine value statements and chosen treatment. The primary outcome, decision quality, was defined as the combination of well-informed decision and value congruent decision. Secondary outcomes were decisional conflict, involvement and received role in shared decision-making, decisional regret, and treatment choice. RESULTS: A total of 109 DA-users and 108 controls were included. DA-users were younger (68.4 vs 71.5 years; P = 0.003) and their education level was higher (P = 0.047) compared with the controls. Patients who used the DA made a well-informed and value congruent decision more often than the control group (43% vs 21%; P = 0.028). DA-users had less decisional conflict (score 33.2 vs 46.6; P = 0.003), experienced a less passive role in decision-making (22% vs 41%; P = 0.038), and reported less process regret (score 2.4 vs 2.8; P = 0.034). Furthermore, DA-users who had not used prior medication chose lifestyle advices more often than the control group (43% vs 11%; P = 0.002). Outcomes were adjusted for significantly different baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: The LUTS/BPH DA seems to improve the decision quality by supporting patients in making more well-informed and value congruent treatment decisions. Therefore, further implementation of this DA into routine care is suggested.