A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer.

Introduction: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common side effect of prostate cancer treatment, but in clinical practice, it is difficult to predict. Machine learning (ML) models have shown promising results in predicting outcomes, yet the lack of transparency in complex models known as "black-box" has made clinicians wary of relying on them in sensitive decisions. Therefore, finding a balance between accuracy and explainability is crucial for the implementation of ML models. The aim of this study was to employ three different ML classifiers to predict the probability of experiencing UI in men with localized prostate cancer 1-year and 2-year after treatment and compare their accuracy and explainability. Methods: We used the ProZIB dataset from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland; IKNL) which contained clinical, demographic, and PROM data of 964 patients from 65 Dutch hospitals. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms were applied to predict (in)continence after prostate cancer treatment. Results: All models have been externally validated according to the TRIPOD Type 3 guidelines and their performance was assessed by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. While all three models demonstrated similar performance, LR showed slightly better accuracy than RF and SVM in predicting the risk of UI one year after prostate cancer treatment, achieving an accuracy of 0.75, a sensitivity of 0.82, and an AUC of 0.79. All models for the 2-year outcome performed poorly in the validation set, with an accuracy of 0.6 for LR, 0.65 for RF, and 0.54 for SVM. Conclusion: The outcomes of our study demonstrate the promise of using non-black box models, such as LR, to assist clinicians in recognizing high-risk patients and making informed treatment choices. The coefficients of the LR model show the importance of each feature in predicting results, and the generated nomogram provides an accessible illustration of how each feature impacts the predicted outcome. Additionally, the model's simplicity and interpretability make it a more appropriate option in scenarios where comprehending the model's predictions is essential.

Development and external validation of multivariate prediction models for erectile dysfunction in men with localized prostate cancer.

While the 10-year survival rate for localized prostate cancer patients is very good (>98%), side effects of treatment may limit quality of life significantly. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common burden associated with increasing age as well as prostate cancer treatment. Although many studies have investigated the factors affecting erectile dysfunction (ED) after prostate cancer treatment, only limited studies have investigated whether ED can be predicted before the start of treatment. The advent of machine learning (ML) based prediction tools in oncology offers a promising approach to improve the accuracy of prediction and quality of care. Predicting ED may help aid shared decision-making by making the advantages and disadvantages of certain treatments clear, so that a tailored treatment for an individual patient can be chosen. This study aimed to predict ED at 1-year and 2-year post-diagnosis based on patient demographics, clinical data and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) measured at diagnosis. We used a subset of the ProZIB dataset collected by the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland; IKNL) that contained information on 964 localized prostate cancer cases from 69 Dutch hospitals for model training and external validation. Two models were generated using a logistic regression algorithm coupled with Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE). The first predicted ED 1 year post-diagnosis and required 10 pre-treatment variables; the second predicted ED 2 years post-diagnosis with 9 pre-treatment variables. The validation AUCs were 0.84 and 0.81 for 1 year and 2 years post-diagnosis respectively. To immediately allow patients and clinicians to use these models in the clinical decision-making process, nomograms were generated. In conclusion, we successfully developed and validated two models that predicted ED in patients with localized prostate cancer. These models will allow physicians and patients alike to make informed evidence-based decisions about the most suitable treatment with quality of life in mind.

Health Literacy and eHealth: Challenges and Strategies.

Given the impact of health literacy (HL) on patients' outcomes, limited health literacy is a major barrier to improve cancer care globally. HL refers to the degree in which an individual is able to acquire, process, and comprehend information in a way to be actively involved in their health decisions. Previous research found that almost half of the population in developed countries have difficulties in understanding health-related information. With the gradual shift toward the shared decision making process and digital transformation in oncology, the need for addressing low HL issues is crucial. Decision making in oncology is often accompanied by considerable consequences on patients' lives, which requires patients to understand complex information and be able to compare treatment methods by considering their own values. How health information is perceived by patients is influenced by various factors including patients' characteristics and the way information is presented to patients. Currently, identifying patients with low HL and simple data visualizations are the best practice to help patients and clinicians in dealing with limited health literacy. Furthermore, using eHealth, as well as involving HL mediators, supports patients to make sense of complex information.

Breast cancer patients' most important quality of life themes for a radiotherapy decision aid.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The BRASA patient decision aid (BRASA-PtDA) facilitates shared decision making for breast cancer patients (BCPs) facing a radiotherapy treatment decision. During evaluations, patients indicated the wish for quantitative information on side effects. Therefore, this study assessed BCPs opinion on which and how information on side effects should be incorporated in the BRASA-PtDA. METHODS: A workshop was organized with BCPs (n = 9), researchers (n = 5) and clinicians (n = 3). Subsequently, a survey was sent to BCPs (n = 744) investigating the generalisability of the workshop findings, and posing additional questions. The survey entailed multiple choice questions on quality of life themes, the use of a decision aid and risk communication. RESULTS: The workshop revealed BCPs wish for a layered, all encompassing information system. Information on the impact of side effects on daily life was preferred above the risk of these side effects. The survey revealed that important quality of life (QoL) themes were having energy (81%; n = 605), arm function (61%; n = 452), pain (55%; n = 410). Despite the focus on qualitative effects in the workshop, 89% of the survey respondents also wanted to be informed on individualized risks of side effects. 54% Of the survey respondents had never heard of a PtDA. CONCLUSIONS: BCPs preferred information on the impact of side effects, but also their individualized risks on side effects. Most important QoL themes were having enough energy, arm function and pain. Consequently, the BRASA-PtDA should be reshaped, starting with quality of life themes, rather than side effects.

Practitioners' views on shared decision-making implementation: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to the collaboration between patients and their healthcare providers to make clinical decisions based on evidence and patient preferences, often supported by patient decision aids (PDAs). This study explored practitioner experiences of SDM in a context where SDM has been successfully implemented. Specifically, we focused on practitioners' perceptions of SDM as a paradigm, factors influencing implementation success, and outcomes. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach to examine the experiences and perceptions of 10 Danish practitioners at a cancer hospital experienced in SDM implementation. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data was analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Prior to SDM implementation, participants had a range of attitudes from skeptical to receptive. Those with more direct long-term contact with patients (such as nurses) were more positive about the need for SDM. We identified four main factors that influenced SDM implementation success: raising awareness of SDM behaviors among clinicians through concrete measurements, supporting the formation of new habits through reinforcement mechanisms, increasing the flexibility of PDA delivery, and strong leadership. According to our participants, these factors were instrumental in overcoming initial skepticism and solidifying new SDM behaviors. Improvements to the clinical process were reported. Sustaining and transferring the knowledge gained to other contexts will require adapting measurement tools. CONCLUSIONS: Applying SDM in clinical practice represents a major shift in mindset for clinicians. Designing SDM initiatives with an understanding of the underlying behavioral mechanisms may increase the probability of successful and sustained implementation.