Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Its Implementation in Cervical Cancer Management in the Philippines: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence. Although much studied, recognized to be ethically imperative, and recommended in international health policies, it remains poorly implemented. In the Philippines, there are limited studies on patient decision making preferences and SDM. Practical guidance on the implementation of SDM or use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) is often not detailed in existing national clinical practice guidelines in oncology. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of Philippine literature on SDM in oncology and an iterative review of international literature on the philosophy and methods of SDM, the utility and effectiveness of PtDAs, and the facilitators and barriers to implementation or usage. We contextualized our review to the cervical cancer management and health service delivery in the Philippines. RESULTS: Local literature is limited to five scientific publications and two registered studies. International literature encompasses patient decisional preferences, the role of PtDAs and the standards for their development and evaluation, their effectiveness, and barriers and facilitators to their use in cancer-related decision making. We discussed the implications on the management of cervical cancer in the Philippines, challenges in health service delivery and standards, and SDM research. CONCLUSION: Local SDM research is limited. Our preliminary experience in a multicenter clinical trial in Manila on PtDA use in the framework of SDM in cervical cancer suggest good patient and clinician acceptability. Challenges to implementation such as unfavorable financial situations, urgency of clinical decisions, low patient or caregiver educational attainment, and poor integration of multidisciplinary and SDM in organizational workflows will be important when implementing SDM in different settings.

Clinical outcomes of single application multi-fractionated CT-guided interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: A multi-institution initial experience.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes of single application multi-fractionated computed tomography (CT)-guided interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy given in four fractions in locally advanced cervical cancer. Material and methods: Patients with locally advanced cervical cancer stage IIB-IVA treated definitively with external radiation ± weekly cisplatin, followed by single application multi-fractionated CT-guided interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy in four fractions were included. Dosimetry data, clinical response, and toxicity records were reviewed. Results: Between January 2018 and December 2022, twenty-two patients were included. Clinical stage distribution was as follows: IIB - 13.6%, IIIB - 27.3%, IIIC - 22.7%, and IVA - 36.4%. Mean high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) was 66.19 ±32.69 cm3, and HR-CTV D90 dose was 86.8 ±1.7 Gy. 2 cc doses to bladder, rectum, and sigmoid were 84.6 ±2.8 Gy, 71.5 ±2.4 Gy, and 65.6 ±4.0 Gy, respectively. Mean overall treatment time was 66 ±21 days. With a median follow-up of 11.5 months (range, 5-44 months), median survival and local control were not achieved. One-year local control rate, one-year progression-free survival, and one-year overall survival were 82%, 66%, and 78%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed overall treatment time to be the only variable associated with all oncologic outcomes. For acute toxicity, grade 3 toxicity in four patients and grade 4 toxicity of infection in one patient were observed. For late toxicity, grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity was noted in two patients. Conclusions: Initial results suggest that single application multi-fractionated CT-guided interstitial brachytherapy given in four fractions in locally advanced cervical cancer seems to be feasible and safe, but additional evidence is needed to generate more validated conclusions.