A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making.
Decision aid
Personalized medicine
Prostate cancer
Radiation therapy preference based decisions
Shared decision making
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 12 2021
31 12 2021
Historique:
received:
19
10
2021
accepted:
17
12
2021
entrez:
1
1
2022
pubmed:
2
1
2022
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A shared decision-making model is preferred for engaging prostate cancer patients in treatment decisions. However, the process of assessing an individual's preferences and values is challenging and not formalized. The purpose of this study is to develop an automated decision aid for patient-centric treatment decision-making using decision analysis, preference thresholds and value elicitations to maximize the compatibility between a patient's treatment expectations and outcome. A template for patient-centric medical decision-making was constructed. The inputs included prostate cancer risk group, pre-treatment health state, treatment alternatives (primarily focused on radiation in this model), side effects (erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence), and treatment success (5-year freedom from biochemical failure). A linear additive value function was used to combine the values for each attribute (side effects, success and the alternatives) into a value for all prospects. The patient-reported toxicity probabilities were derived from phase II and III trials. The probabilities are conditioned on the starting state for each of the side effects. Toxicity matrices for erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence were created for the treatment alternatives. Toxicity probability thresholds were obtained by identifying the patient's maximum acceptable threshold for each of the side effects. Results are represented as a visual. R and Rstudio were used to perform analyses, and R Shiny for application creation. We developed a web-based decision aid. Based on preliminary use of the application, every treatment alternative could be the best choice for a decision maker with a particular set of preferences. This result implies that no treatment has determinist dominance over the remaining treatments and that a preference-based approach can help patients through their decision-making process, potentially affecting compliance with treatment, tolerance of side effects and satisfaction with the decision. We present a unique patient-centric prostate cancer treatment decision aid that systematically assesses and incorporates a patient's preferences and values to rank treatment options by likelihood of achieving the preferred outcome. This application enables the practice and study of personalized medicine. This model can be expanded to include additional inputs, such as genomics, as well as competing, concurrent or sequential therapies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A shared decision-making model is preferred for engaging prostate cancer patients in treatment decisions. However, the process of assessing an individual's preferences and values is challenging and not formalized. The purpose of this study is to develop an automated decision aid for patient-centric treatment decision-making using decision analysis, preference thresholds and value elicitations to maximize the compatibility between a patient's treatment expectations and outcome.
METHODS
A template for patient-centric medical decision-making was constructed. The inputs included prostate cancer risk group, pre-treatment health state, treatment alternatives (primarily focused on radiation in this model), side effects (erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence), and treatment success (5-year freedom from biochemical failure). A linear additive value function was used to combine the values for each attribute (side effects, success and the alternatives) into a value for all prospects. The patient-reported toxicity probabilities were derived from phase II and III trials. The probabilities are conditioned on the starting state for each of the side effects. Toxicity matrices for erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence were created for the treatment alternatives. Toxicity probability thresholds were obtained by identifying the patient's maximum acceptable threshold for each of the side effects. Results are represented as a visual. R and Rstudio were used to perform analyses, and R Shiny for application creation.
RESULTS
We developed a web-based decision aid. Based on preliminary use of the application, every treatment alternative could be the best choice for a decision maker with a particular set of preferences. This result implies that no treatment has determinist dominance over the remaining treatments and that a preference-based approach can help patients through their decision-making process, potentially affecting compliance with treatment, tolerance of side effects and satisfaction with the decision.
CONCLUSIONS
We present a unique patient-centric prostate cancer treatment decision aid that systematically assesses and incorporates a patient's preferences and values to rank treatment options by likelihood of achieving the preferred outcome. This application enables the practice and study of personalized medicine. This model can be expanded to include additional inputs, such as genomics, as well as competing, concurrent or sequential therapies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34972513
doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01732-2
pii: 10.1186/s12911-021-01732-2
pmc: PMC8720209
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
374Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Urology. 2019 Oct;132:94-100
pubmed: 31299329
BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417
pubmed: 16908462
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Sep 1;177(9):1239-1240
pubmed: 28692733
Urology. 2000 Dec 20;56(6):899-905
pubmed: 11113727
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431
pubmed: 28402085
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jul 11;19(1):130
pubmed: 31296199
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424
pubmed: 27626136
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017 Jul;29(7):412-420
pubmed: 28190638
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 1;31(31):3860-8
pubmed: 24101042
J Urol. 2018 Mar;199(3):683-690
pubmed: 29203269
Scand J Caring Sci. 2020 Dec;34(4):880-888
pubmed: 31749179
J Urol. 1992 Nov;148(5):1549-57; discussion 1564
pubmed: 1279218
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Feb 1;2(2):e188006
pubmed: 30735235
J Cancer Educ. 2020 Dec;35(6):1141-1148
pubmed: 31278659