Offering a treatment choice in the irradiation of prostate cancer leads to better informed and more active patients, without harm to well-being.

PURPOSE: To examine, in prostate cancer patients, the effect of (1) being offered a choice between radiation doses in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and of (2) accepting or declining the possibility to choose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 150 patients with localized prostate cancer (T1-3N0M0) were offered a choice with a decision aid between two radiation doses (70 and 74 Gy). A control group of 144 patients received a fixed radiation dose without being offered a choice. Data were collected at baseline (before choice), before treatment (after choice), and 2 weeks and 6 months after treatment completion. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the involvement group, receiving the decision aid, showed increased participation in decision making (p < 0.001), increased knowledge (p < 0.001), and improved risk perception (p < 0.001); they were more satisfied with the quality of information (p = 0.002) and considered their treatment a more appropriate treatment (p = 0.01). No group differences were found in well-being (e.g., general health, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life, anxiety). Within the involvement group, accepting or declining the option to choose did not affect well-being either. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a choice of radiation dose, with a decision aid, increased involvement in decision making and led to a better-informed patient. In contrast to earlier suggestions, a strong increase in involvement did not result in improved well-being; and in contrast to clinical concerns, well-being was not negatively affected either, not even in those patients who preferred to leave the decision to their physician. This study shows that older patients, such as prostate cancer patients, can be informed and involved in decision making.

Doctors' and patients' preferences for participation and treatment in curative prostate cancer radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Physicians hold opinions about unvoiced patient preferences, so-called substitute preferences. We studied whether doctors can predict preferences of patients supported with a decision aid. METHODS: A total of 150 patients with prostate cancer facing radiotherapy were included. After the initial consultation, without discussing any treatment choice, physicians gave substitute judgments for patients' decision-making and radiation dose preferences. Physicians knew that several weeks later, patients would be empowered by a decision aid supporting a choice between two radiation doses involving a trade-off between disease-free survival and adverse effects. Subsequently, patient preferences for decision making (whether or not they wanted to choose a radiation dose) and for treatment (low or high dose) were obtained. The chosen radiation dose actually was administered. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, 79% chose a treatment; physicians believed that 66% of the patients wanted to choose. Agreement was poor (64%; = 0.13; P = .11), and was better as patients became more hopeful (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4 per unit; P = .001) and as physicians' experience increased (OR = 1.09 per year; P = .02). Twenty percent of physicians' preferences, 51% of physicians' substitute preferences, and 71% of patients' preferences favored the lower dose; agreement was again poor (70%; = 0.2; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Physicians had problems predicting the preferences of patients empowered with a decision aid. They slightly underestimated patients' decision-making preferences, and underestimated patients' preferences for the less toxic treatment. Counseling might be improved by first informing patients-possibly using a decision aid--before discussing patient preferences.

Systematic review of the effect of radiation dose on tumor control and morbidity in the treatment of prostate cancer by 3D-CRT.

PURPOSE: A higher radiation dose is believed to result in a larger probability of tumor control and a higher risk of side effects. To make an evidence-based choice of dose, the relation between dose and outcome needs to be known. This study focuses on the dose-response relation for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review was carried out on the literature from 1990 to 2003. From the selected studies, the radiation dose, the associated 5-year survival, 5-year bNED (biochemical no evidence of disease), acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) morbidity Grade 2 or more, and sexual dysfunction were extracted. With logistic regression models, the relation between dose and outcome was described. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies met our criteria, describing 87 subgroups and involving up to 3000 patients per outcome measure. Between the (equivalent) dose of 70 and 80 Gy, various models estimated an increase in 5-year survival (ranging from 10% to 11%), 5-year bNED for low-risk patients (5-7%), late GI complications (12-16%), late GU complications (8-10%), and erectile dysfunction (19-24%). Only for the overall 5-year bNED, results were inconclusive (range, 0-18%). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest a relationship between dose and outcome measures, including survival. However, the strength of these conclusions is limited by the sometimes small number of studies, the incompleteness of the data, and above all, the correlational nature of the data. Unambiguous proof for the dose-response relationships can, therefore, only be obtained by conducting randomized trials.

The decision evaluation scales.

There are several instruments to assess how patients evaluate their medical treatment choice. These are used to evaluate decision aids. Our objective is to investigate which psychological factors play a role when patients evaluate their medical treatment choices. A pool of 36 items was constructed, covering concepts such as uncertainty about and satisfaction with the decision, informed choice, effective decision making, responsibility for the decision, perceived riskiness of the choice, and social support regarding the decision. This pool was presented to patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer, awaiting a genetic test result, and facing the choice between prophylactic surgery or screening. Additional measures were assessed for validation purposes. Factor and Rasch analyses were used for factor and item selection. Construct validity of emerging scales was assessed by relating them with the additional measures. Three factors summarised the psychological factors concerning decision evaluation: Satisfaction-Uncertainty, Informed Choice, and Decision Control. Reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha) of the three scales were 0.79, 0.85, and 0.75, respectively. Construct validity hypotheses were confirmed. The first two scales were similar to previously developed scales. Of these three scales, the Decision Control scale correlated most strongly with the well-being measures, was associated with partner's agreement and physician's preferences as perceived by patients, and with a negative emotional reaction to the information material. In conclusion, the Decision Control scale is a new scale to evaluate decision aids, and it appears to be rooted in health psychological theories.

Patient participation in discussing palliative radiotherapy.

Cancer patients' participation in doctor-patient interactions has been shown to be an important factor in the emotional processing of their condition, particularly when only palliative treatments can be offered. In this study, we assessed incurable cancer patients' participation in initial consultations with their radiation oncologists (ROs). RO stimulation of patient participation and discussions about treatment decisions were also measured. The entire consultation was videotaped and analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Patients' participation proved to be low on medical information, but high on discussing their experiences and life circumstances. The ROs stimulated patient participation mainly by providing medical information and giving patients opportunities to tell their stories. Decisions about radiation treatment had previously taken place and were rarely discussed in the consultations studied. The results suggest that patient participation in palliative treatment consultations might be improved for facilitating patients' emotional processing of the incurable nature of their cancer.

Decision analysis of prophylactic surgery or screening for BRCA1 mutation carriers: a more prominent role for oophorectomy.

PURPOSE: BRCA1 mutation carriers have a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Carriers may opt for prophylactic surgery and screening. Recent data suggesting that prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer risk have been incorporated in a decision analysis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare LE and QALE following four strategies: (1) prophylactic mastectomy and prophylactic oophorectomy (PMPO), (2) screening for breast cancer and prophylactic oophorectomy (BSPO), (3) prophylactic mastectomy and screening for ovarian cancer (PMOS), and (4) screening for breast and ovarian cancer (BSOS). The analysis was performed for a high (85% breast cancer, 63% ovarian cancer) and medium (56% breast cancer, 16% ovarian cancer) risk level. Utilities for the health states after prophylactic surgery were obtained from mutation carriers. Other model parameter values were obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: When compared with BSOS, the average gain in LE for 30-year-old carriers in the high (medium) risk group was 11.7 (6.6) years for PMPO, 9.5 (5.3) years for BSPO, and 4.9 (4.4) years for PMOS. For 30-year-old carriers, BSPO had a QALE advantage when PO was performed before age 40. In the medium-risk group, there was a stronger advantage for BSPO when QALE was considered. CONCLUSION: PMPO is the most effective strategy to prolong life. However, if patient preferences were taken into account, BSPO tends to be a better strategy in most women at medium risk or in young women at high risk when PO was performed before age 40.