Dataset Information

Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The management of localized prostate cancer is challenging because of the many therapeutic options available, none of which is generally acknowledged as superior to the others in every respect. The selection of the most appropriate treatment should therefore reflect patients' preferences.

Objective

The purpose of the following study was to pilot a new approach for investigating whether urologists who had previously provided patients with therapeutic advice actually knew their patients' importance weights concerning the relevant aspects of the treatments at issue.

Method

Participants were patients recently diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (n = 20), urologists (n = 10), and non-medical professionals (architects, n = 10). These last served as a control group for the urologists and were matched to them for age and gender. Patients' importance weights were elicited by two standard methods (Direct Rating and Value Hierarchy). Each urologist was asked to estimate (with Direct Rating) his/her patient's importance weights. The same task was performed by a corresponding architect, who never met the patient and knew only the patient's age. Univariate and bivariate statistical analyses were performed to investigate the association between importance weights as elicited from patients and as estimated by urologists and architects, as well as to assess whether such agreement was attribute-dependent.

Results

Participants found both elicitation methods easy to use. The correlation between patients' actual importance weights and urologists' estimates was poor and comparable to that obtained between patients and architects. This result did not depend on the attribute considered, with the sole exception of the attribute "Effectiveness in curing the cancer", which was evaluated as the most important attribute by the majority of participants.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate the feasibility of the employed methodology and highlight the need to support preference-sensitive decisions in clinical practice by facilitating the elicitation of patients' importance weights, as well as their communication to physicians.

SUBMITTER: Tentori K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6062014 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer.

Tentori Katya K Pighin Stefania S Divan Claudio C Crupi Vincenzo V

PloS one 20180726 7

<h4>Background</h4>The management of localized prostate cancer is challenging because of the many therapeutic options available, none of which is generally acknowledged as superior to the others in every respect. The selection of the most appropriate treatment should therefore reflect patients' preferences.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of the following study was to pilot a new approach for investigating whether urologists who had previously provided patients with therapeutic advice actually knew ...[more]

PMID: 30048485

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRadiotherapy can diminish quality of life (QoL) for prostate cancer patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of radiotherapy on QoL in men aged 75 years or older treated with radiotherapy for a localized prostate cancer, and to identify predictors of reduced QoL.Patients and methodsWe prospectively administered a battery of geriatric (MNA, GDS, Get up and Go Test, CIRS-G, ADL, IADL, MMSE), toxicity (IPSS; IIEF 5), and QoL (QLQ C30) screening tests in 100 elderly patients before and two months after prostate cancer radiotherapy (NCT 02876237). Patients ≥ 75 years undergoing radiotherapy with a curative intent for localized prostate cancer with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADL) were eligible for study inclusion. Correlations between patient-assessed QoL and tumor characteristics, radiotherapy treatment or CGA parameters were sought using the Fisher or the Mann and Whitney tests. Changes in QoL parameters over time were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.ResultsAt study entry, scores for IADL impairments were present in 51%, reduced autonomy in activities of daily living in 16%, cognitive impairment found in 20%, depression-related symptoms in 31%, and 66% of patients had significant co-morbidities. Eight percent were judged to be at risk of fall and 2% were found to be undernourished. Severely impaired (IPSS ≥ 20) urinary function was observed in 11.2% and 13.5% of patients before and two months after completion of radiotherapy respectively. Significantly decreased QoL (> 20 points) at two months after treatment was found in 13% of patients and a moderate but clinically relevant reduction (10 to 20 points) in 17% of patients. No tumor characteristic, treatment, or oncogeriatric parameter was predictive of reduced QoL following prostate cancer radiotherapy.ConclusionDespite sometimes markedly diminished oncogeriatric parameters, prostate cancer radiotherapy was generally well tolerated in these elderly patients. We found no predictive factor to determine which patients would experience impaired quality of life following radiotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundTelomeres play important roles in cancer initiation and progression. The aim of this study is to investigate whether leukocyte telomere length (LTL) is associated with aggressive prostate cancer (PCa).MethodsWe measured relative LTL in a cohort of 1,889 white PCa patients who were treated and followed up at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and assessed its associations with aggressive disease characteristics at diagnosis and biochemical recurrence (BCR) after active treatments (radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy). We further used a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach to compute a weighted genetic risk score (GRS) predictive of LTL using 10 established LTL-associated genetic variants and determined whether this GRS is associated with aggressive PCa.FindingsLTL was significantly shorter in patients with higher Gleason scores at diagnosis. Dichotomized at the median value of LTL, patients with short LTL exhibited a 2.74-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.79-4.18, P = 3.11 × 10-6) increased risk of presenting with GS≥8 disease than those with long LTL in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Moreover, shorter LTL was significantly associated with an increased risk of BCR (hazard ratio = 1.53, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.34) compared to longer LTL in localized patients receiving prostatectomy or radiotherapy with a significant dose-response association (P for trend = 0.017) in multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. In MR analysis, genetically predicted short LTL was also associated with an increased risk of BCR (HR=1.73, 95% CI, 1.08-2.78).InterpretationOur results showed for the first time that LTL was shorter in PCa patients with high Gleason scores and that short LTL and genetically predicted short LTL are associated with worse prognosis in PCa patients receiving prostatectomy or radiotherapy.FundingCancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) grant (RP140556), National Cancer Institute Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) grant (CA140388), and MD Anderson Cancer Center start-up fund.

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer is very common and many localized tumours are non-aggressive. Determining which cancers are aggressive is important for choosing the most appropriate treatment (e.g., surgery, radiation, active surveillance). Current clinical risk stratification is reliable in forecasting the prognosis of groups of men with similar clinical and pathologic characteristics, but there is residual uncertainty at the individual level. The Prolaris cell cycle progression (CCP) test, a genomic test that estimates how fast tumour cells are proliferating, could potentially be used to improve the accuracy of individual risk assessment. This health technology assessment sought to determine the clinical utility, economic impact, and patients' perceptions of the value of the CCP test in low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the clinical and economic evidence of the CCP test in low-and intermediate-risk, localized prostate cancer. Medical and health economic databases were searched from 2010 to June or July 2016. The critical appraisal of the clinical evidence included risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also analyzed the potential budget impact of adding the CCP test into current practice, from the perspective the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Finally, we conducted qualitative interviews with men with prostate cancer, on the factors that influenced their treatment decision-making.ResultsFor the review of clinical effectiveness, we screened 3,021 citations, and two before-after studies met our inclusion criteria. In one study, the results of the CCP test appeared to change the treatment plan (from initial to final plan) in 64.9% of cases overall (GRADE rating of the quality of evidence: Very low). In the other study, the CCP test changed the treatment received in nearly half of cases overall, compared with the initial plan (GRADE: Very low). No evidence was available on clinical outcomes of patients whose treatment was informed by CCP results. For the review of cost-effectiveness, 100 citations were identified and screened. No studies met the inclusion criteria. In our economic evaluation, we estimated that publicly funding the CCP test would result in a total net budget impact of $41.3 million in the first 5 years, mostly due to the cost of the CCP test. In our model, the relatively small cost savings ($7.3 million) due to treatment change (increased use of active surveillance and decreased use of interventional treatment) was not large enough to offset the high cost of the test. Patients viewed the test as potentially helpful but, due to the complexity of treatment decision-making, were unsure the test would ultimately change their treatment choices.ConclusionsWe found no evidence to demonstrate the impact of the Prolaris CCP test on patient-important clinical outcomes. The limited evidence available shows that the test appears to provide information that, when considered in addition to clinical risk stratification, may change the treatment plan or actual treatment for some low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients. As a result, there is insufficient data to inform the cost-effectiveness of the CCP test. Publicly funding the CCP test would result in a large incremental cost to the provincial budget.

Dataset Information

Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer.

Background

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets