Patient preferences, regret, and health-related quality of life among older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: A pilot longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with poor outcomes and is generally incurable. Therefore, understanding preferences of older adults with AML is critical. We sought to assess whether best-worst scaling (BWS) can be used to capture attributes considered by older adults with AML when making initial treatment decisions and longitudinally, as well as assess changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and decisional regret over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a longitudinal study for adults ≥60 years with newly diagnosed AML, we collected: (1) attributes of treatment most important to patients using BWS, (2) HRQoL using EQ-5D-5L, (3) decisional regret using the Decisional Regret Scale, and (4) treatment worthiness using the "Was it worth it?" questionnaire. Data was collected at baseline and over six months. A hierarchical Bayes model was used to allocate percentages out of 100%. Due to small sample size, hypothesis testing was performed at α = 0.10 (2-tailed). We analyzed how these measures differed by treatment choice (intensive vs. lower intensity treatment). RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 76 years (n = 15). At baseline, the most important attributes of treatment to patients were response to treatment (i.e., chance that the cancer will respond to treatment; 20.9%). Compared to those who received lower intensity treatment (n = 7) or best supportive care (n = 2), those who received intensive treatment (n = 6) generally ranked "alive one year or more after treatment" (p = 0.03) with higher importance and ranked "daily activities" (p = 0.01) and "location of treatment" (p = 0.01) with less importance. Overall, HRQoL scores were high. Decisional regret was mild overall and lower for patients who chose intensive treatment (p = 0.06). DISCUSSION: We demonstrated that BWS can be used to assess the importance of various treatment attributes considered by older adults with AML when making initial treatment decisions and longitudinally throughout treatment. Attributes of treatment important to older patients with AML differed between treatment groups and changed over time. Interventions are needed to re-assess patient priorities throughout treatment to ensure care aligns with patient preferences.

The role of self-perceived age in older adults considering adjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Aging-related concerns can increase the risk of treatment toxicities among older adults considering adjuvant chemotherapy. We previously demonstrated that older adults with cancer who reported feeling older than their chronological age (i.e., self-perceived age) were more likely to have aging-related concerns identified during a geriatric assessment. We explored how decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy vary with or are related to older adults' self-perceived age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multi-phased feasibility pilot using semi-structured interviews that were conducted to explore the patient decision-making process for adjuvant chemotherapy. Interviews incorporated questions about chronological and perceived age as factors for decision-making. Patient eligibility for the study included (1) age ≥ 70 years and older, (2) a diagnosis of breast, colon, or lung cancer and considering adjuvant chemotherapy, and (3) able to read size 18 font in English. Interview data were analyzed using constant comparative method. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled. The mean chronological age was 78 years (range 71-91). The average perceived age of patients was 57 years (range 21-80). Eleven patients chose to receive treatment while ten patients did not. Aging-related themes illustrated that self-perceived age plays an important role when patients make decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy. More specifically, patients who reported their self-perceived age as younger than their chronological age also reported better perceived health status and chose to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. DISCUSSION: Patients' experiences of aging and self-perceived age may have different implications for decision-making.

Patient-centered communication tool for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia, their caregivers, and oncologists: A single-arm pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In a single-arm pilot study, we assessed the feasibility and usefulness of an innovative patient-centered communication tool (UR-GOAL tool) that addresses aging-related vulnerabilities, patient values, and prognostic awareness for use in treatment decision making between older adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), their caregivers, and oncologists. METHODS: Primary feasibility metric was retention rate; >50% was considered feasible. We collected recruitment rate, usefulness, and outcomes including AML knowledge (range 0-14) and perceived efficacy in communicating with oncologists (range 5-25). Due to the pilot nature and small sample size, hypothesis testing was performed at α = 0.10. RESULTS: We included 15 patients (mean age 76 years, range 64-88), 12 caregivers, and 5 oncologists; enrollment and retention rates for patients were 84% and 73%, respectively. Patients agreed that the UR-GOAL tool helped them understand their AML diagnosis and treatment options, communicate with their oncologist, and make more informed decisions. From baseline to post-intervention, patients and caregivers scored numerically higher on AML knowledge (patients: +0.6, p = 0.22; caregivers: +1.1, p = 0.05) and perceived greater efficacy in communicating with their oncologists (patients: +1.5, p = 0.22; caregivers: +1.2, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that it is feasible to incorporate the UR-GOAL tool into treatment decision making for older patients with AML, their caregivers, and oncologists.

Older patients' experiences following initial diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The onset of symptoms and the diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) often occur suddenly and may lead to a range of emotional responses. Understanding patients' experiences and emotional states allows clinicians to tailor care to patients' needs. Previous studies have largely focused on patients' experiences at diagnosis and after remission has been achieved among those who received intensive chemotherapy. In this study, we evaluated experiences of older patients with AML who had received or were receiving treatments of varying intensity, in both outpatient and inpatient settings, and who were at different stages in their treatment course at the time of our interviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single center qualitative study which aimed to understand factors influencing older patients' treatment decision-making and the findings were previously reported. This analysis specifically explored older patients' experiences at various stages after AML diagnosis. We purposively sampled patients based on treatment intensity and stage of treatment (undergoing induction treatment, post-remission treatment, or post-allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant). We recruited fifteen patients aged ≥60 years with AML. The sample size was determined based on reaching data saturation for the primary study aim. For this analysis, data saturation was reached by the fourteenth manuscript. In-depth semi-structured interviews that had been recorded and transcribed were re-analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to explore patients' experiences. Coding was performed using Atlas.ti. We identified themes with the aim of capturing the most commonly shared experiences. RESULTS: Mean age of the fifteen patients was 72.1 years; all had received one or more treatments including intensive induction therapy (10/15), lower-intensity treatment (7/15), and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplant (3/15). Patients experienced strong negative emotional responses, including shock, that were barriers to processing information and meaningful communication. Patients also shared their perspectives on communication with healthcare professionals (including thoughts on adequacy of information provided) and coping strategies. DISCUSSION: Understanding older patients' experiences, including emotional responses and barriers to communication and decision making, at AML diagnosis and throughout the illness trajectory allows clinicians to address patients' supportive care needs during this difficult period.

Treatment decision-making in acute myeloid leukemia: a qualitative study of older adults and community oncologists.

Little is known about the characteristics of patients, physicians, and organizations that influence treatment decisions in older patients with AML. We conducted qualitative interviews with community oncologists and older patients with AML to elicit factors that influence their treatment decision-making. Recruitment was done via purposive sampling and continued until theoretical saturation was reached, resulting in the inclusion of 15 patients and 15 oncologists. Participants' responses were analyzed using directed content analysis. Oncologists and patients considered comorbidities, functional status, emotional health, cognition, and social factors when deciding treatment; most oncologists evaluated these using clinical gestalt. Sixty-seven percent of patients perceived that treatment was their only option and that they had not been offered a choice. In conclusion, treatment decision-making is complex and influenced by patient-related factors. These factors can be assessed as part of a geriatric assessment which can help oncologists better determine fitness and guide treatment decision-making.

Sources of Information for Learning and Decision-Making in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Information seeking is essential for effective patient-centered decision-making. However, prostate cancer patients report a gap between information needed and information received. The importance of different information sources for treatment decision remains unclear. Thus, using the Comprehensive Model of Health Information (CMIS) framework, we assessed the antecedent factors, information carrier factors, and information-seeking activities in localized prostate cancer patients. Data were collected via semistructured one-on-one, interviews and structured survey. Men with localized prostate cancer were recruited from two urban health-care centers. Following the interview, participants completed a survey about sources that were helpful in learning about prostate cancer treatment and decision-making. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to a thematic analysis using NVivo 10. Fifty localized prostate cancer survivors completed the interviews and surveys. Important antecedent factors that were observed were age, marital status, uncertainty, anxiety, caregiver burden, and out-of-pocket expenses. We identified complexity, magnitude, and reliability as information carrier characteristics. Preferred sources for information were health providers, medical websites, and pamphlets from the doctor's office. These sources were also perceived as most helpful for decision-making. Urologists, urological oncologists, and radiation/radiation oncologists were important sources of information and helpful in decision-making. Prostate cancer patients obtained information from multiple sources. Most prostate cancer patients make patient-centered choices by incorporating personal factors and medical information. By considering factors that influence patients' treatment decisions, health-care providers can enhance the patient-centeredness of care. Multiple strategies and interventions are necessary for disseminating valid, reliable, and unbiased information to prostate cancer patients to facilitate informed decisions.

Relationships of self-perceived age with geriatric assessment domains in older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Older self-perceived age is associated with poor health and higher healthcare utilization in the geriatric population. We evaluated the associations of self-perceived age with geriatric assessment (GA) domain impairments in older adults with cancer. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of baseline data from a GA cluster-randomized trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile). We included patients aged ≥70 with incurable stage III/IV solid tumor or lymphoma considering or receiving treatment and had ≥1 GA domain impairment other than polypharmacy. Multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the associations of age difference between chronological and self-perceived age (categorized into "feeling younger than chronological age" vs. "feeling the same or older than their chronological age") with GA domain impairments. RESULTS: We included 533 patients; mean age was 76.6 (SD 5.2). On multivariate analyses, compared to those who felt younger than their chronological age, those who felt the same or older were more likely to have impairments in physical performance [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) 5.42, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.69-17.40)], functional status (AOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.73-3.07), comorbidity (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.20-2.19), psychological health (AOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.85-3.73), and nutrition (AOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20-2.28). They were also more likely to screen positively for polypharmacy (AOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.30-2.65). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with cancer who felt the same or older than their chronological age were more likely to have GA domain impairments. Further studies are needed to better understand the relationships between self-perceived age, aging-related conditions, and outcomes in this population.

A Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Two Patient-Centered Interventions for Women with Unmet Social Needs: Personalized Support for Progress and Enhanced Screening and Referral.

Background: Despite recent widespread acceptance that unmet social needs are critically relevant to health, limited guidance exists about how best to address them in the context of women's health care delivery. We aimed to evaluate two interventions: enhanced screening and referral (ESR), a screening intervention with facilitated referral and follow-up calls, and personalized support for progress (PSP), a community health worker intervention tailored to women's priorities. Materials and Methods: Women >18 years were screened for presence of elevated depressive symptoms in three women's health clinics serving primarily Medicaid-eligible patients. If eligible and interested, we enrolled and randomized women to ESR or PSP. Pre- and postintervention assessments were conducted. Primary outcomes were satisfaction, depression, and quality of life (QOL). Planned analyses of subgroup differences were also explored. Results: A total of 235 participants were randomized; 54% identified as African American, 19% as White, and 15% as Latina. Participant mean age was 30 years; 77% reported annual incomes below US $20,000/year; and 30% were pregnant at enrollment. Participants in both arms found the interventions satisfactory and improved for depression (p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups for the primary outcomes. Subgroups reporting greater improvement in QOL in PSP compared with ESR included participants who at baseline reported anxiety (p = 0.05), lack of access to depression treatment (p = 0.02), pain (p = 0.04), and intimate partner violence (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Clinics serving women with unmet social needs may benefit from offering PSP or ESR. Distinguishing how best to use these interventions in practice is the next step.

Patient-Centered Approach to Develop the Patient's Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) Tool.

Objectives. To describe the development of our Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) tool to aid patient-centered treatment decision among localized prostate cancer patients. Methods. We incorporated patient and provider experiences to develop a patient preference elicitation tool using adaptive conjoint analysis. Our patient-centered approach used systematic literature review, semistructured patient interviews, and provider focus groups to determine the treatment attributes most important for decision making. The resulting computer-based PreProCare tool was pilot tested in a clinical setting. Results. A systematic review of 56 articles published between 1995 and 2015 yielded survival, cancer recurrence, side effects, and complications as attributes of treatment options. We conducted one-on-one interviews with 50 prostate cancer survivors and 5 focus groups of providers. Patients reported anxiety, depression, treatment specifics, and caregiver burden as important for decision making. Providers identified clinical characteristics as important attribute. Input from stakeholders' advisory group, physicians, and researchers helped finalize 15 attributes for our PreProCare preference assessment tool. Conclusion. The PreProCare tool was developed using a patient-centered approach and may be a feasible and acceptable preference clarification intervention for localized prostate cancer patients. The PreProCare tool may translate into higher participant engagement and self-efficacy, consistent with patients' personal values.

Effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care Communication Intervention on Personal Caregiver Experiences of Cancer Care and Bereavement Outcomes.

Background: Care teams are increasingly expected to attend to the needs of patient's personal caregivers (e.g., family members). Improving communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers might enhance caregivers' experiences of end-of-life (EoL) cancer care and bereavement outcomes. Objective: To explore the effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care intervention on caregivers' experiences of EoL care and bereavement outcomes. Design: We developed a brief behavioral intervention to improve communication among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their personal caregivers. The intervention was designed to help patients/caregivers ask questions, express concerns, and help oncologists respond effectively. We randomly assigned oncologists (and their patients/caregivers) to the intervention or usual care. Setting/Subjects: Medical oncologists in NY and CA; patients/personal caregivers with advanced cancer. Measurements: Two months after the patient's death, caregivers completed three instruments assessing their experiences of EoL care. Seven months after the patient's death, caregivers completed the Prolonged Grief Disorder-13 (PG-13; primary prespecified outcome), the Purpose-in-Life scale, and scales assessing mental health function, depression, and anxiety. Results: The intervention did not significantly improve caregivers' scores on the PG-13 (p = 0.21), mental health function, depression, or anxiety, but it did improve purpose-in-life scores (p = 0.018). Cohen's d (95% confidence interval) for all three experiences of EoL care outcomes were promising, ranging from 0.22 (-0.19 to 0.63) to 0.39 (-0.07 to 0.86) although none was statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary findings show promise that scalable interventions in cancer care settings may improve caregiver experiences with cancer care and some bereavement outcomes.

Beliefs About Advanced Cancer Curability in Older Patients, Their Caregivers, and Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring older patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists have similar beliefs about curability is important. We investigated discordance in beliefs about curability in patient-oncologist and caregiver-oncologist dyads. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used baseline data from a cluster randomized trial assessing whether geriatric assessment improves communication and quality of life in older patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients were aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer from community oncology practices. Patients, caregivers, and oncologists were asked: "What do you believe are the chances the cancer will go away and never come back with treatment?" Options were 100%, >50%, 50/50, <50%, and 0% (5-point scale). Discordance in beliefs about curability was defined as any difference in scale scores (≥3 points were severe). We used multivariate logistic regressions to describe correlates of discordance. RESULTS: Discordance was present in 60% (15% severe) of the 336 patient-oncologist dyads and 52% (16% severe) of the 245 caregiver-oncologist dyads. Discordance was less common in patient-oncologist dyads when oncologists practiced longer (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.97) and more common in non-Hispanic white patients (AOR 5.77, CI 1.90-17.50) and when patients had lung (AOR 1.95, CI 1.29-2.94) or gastrointestinal (AOR 1.55, CI 1.09-2.21) compared with breast cancer. Severe discordance was more common when patients were non-Hispanic white, had lower income, and had impaired social support. Caregiver-oncologist discordance was more common when caregivers were non-Hispanic white (AOR 3.32, CI 1.01-10.94) and reported lower physical health (AOR 0.88, CI 0.78-1.00). Severe discordance was more common when caregivers had lower income and lower anxiety level. CONCLUSION: Discordance in beliefs about curability is common, occasionally severe, and correlated with patient, caregiver, and oncologist characteristics. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Ensuring older patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have similar beliefs about curability as the oncologist is important. This study investigated discordance in beliefs about curability in patient-oncologist (PO) and caregiver-oncologist (CO) dyads. It found that discordance was present in 60% (15% severe) of PO dyads and 52% (16% severe) of CO dyads, raising serious questions about the process by which patients consent to treatment. This study supports the need for interventions targeted at the oncologist, patient, caregiver, and societal levels to improve the delivery of prognostic information and patients'/caregivers' understanding and acceptance of prognosis.

Longitudinal Relationship Between Frailty and Cognition in Patients 50 Years and Older with Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate relationships between frailty and cognition longitudinally in adults 50 years and older with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING: University of Rochester NCI Community Oncology Research Program community oncology clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with breast cancer age 50 and older receiving adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 376) and age-matched controls without cancer (n = 234). MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was assessed using a modified frailty score from self-reported assessments (weakness, exhaustion, physical activity, and gait speed). Cognition was assessed by patient report (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognition [FACT-Cog]) and objective measures. Frailty and cognition were measured at three time points (prechemotherapy [A1], postchemotherapy [A2], and 6 months postchemotherapy [A3]; similar time interval for controls). Linear regression models evaluated associations between frailty and cognition adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: The average age was 59 years (standard deviation = 6.4 y). At baseline, patients with cancer had a higher mean frailty score (1.21 vs .73; P < .001) and lower mean FACT-Cog score (158.4 vs 167.3; P < .001) compared with controls. Objective cognitive measures were not statistically different. Longitudinal decline in FACT-Cog between A1 and A2 (P < .05) and between A1 and A3 (P < .01) was associated with increased frailty score in patients compared with controls. Longitudinal worsening in Controlled Oral Word Association (P < .05) and Trail-Making Test (P < .01) were associated with an increase in frailty between A1 and A2 in patients compared with controls; longitudinal decline in the Delayed Match to Sample test was associated with an increase in frailty between A1 and A3 (P < .05) in patients compared with controls. This finding remained significant for a subset analysis of those aged 65 and older. CONCLUSION: In patients with breast cancer aged 50 and older, longitudinal decline in FACT-Cog and objective measures of attention and memory were associated with increased frailty during treatment and up to 6 months posttreatment. Overall, our study suggests cognition and frailty are both important factors to assess in breast cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:928-936, 2019.

Patient-Centered Preference Assessment to Improve Satisfaction With Care Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups (P < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; P < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months (P < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.

Willingness to bear adversity and beliefs about the curability of advanced cancer in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with advanced cancer who are 100% certain they will be cured pose unique challenges for clinical decision making, but to the authors' knowledge, the prevalence and correlates of absolute certainty about curability (ACC) are unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected in a geriatric assessment trial. ACC was assessed by asking patients, "What do you believe are the chances that your cancer will go away and never come back with treatment?" Response options were 100% (coded as ACC), >50%, 50/50, <50%, 0%, and uncertain. The willingness to bear adversity in exchange for longevity was assessed by asking patients to consider trade-offs between survival and 2 clinical outcomes that varied in abstractness: 1) maintaining quality of life (QOL; an abstract outcome); and 2) specific treatment-related toxicities (eg, nausea/vomiting, worsening memory). Logistic regression was used to assess the independent associations between willingness to bear adversity and ACC. RESULTS: Of the 524 patients aged 70 to 96 years, approximately 5.3% reported that there was a 100% chance that their cancer would be cured (ACC). ACC was not found to be significantly associated with willingness to bear treatment-related toxicities, but was more common among patients who were willing to trade QOL for survival (adjusted odds ratio, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.17-14.26). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were more willing to bear adversity in the form of an abstract state, namely decreased QOL, were more likely to demonstrate ACC. Although conversations regarding prognosis should be conducted with all patients, those who are willing to trade QOL for survival may especially benefit from conversations that focus on values and emotions.

When chemotherapy fails: Emotionally charged experiences faced by family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To explore family caregivers' emotional experiences while caring for patients with advanced cancer and navigating distressing information, awareness of dying, and difficult decisions. METHODS: Qualitative descriptive study of semi-structured interviews with 92 bereaved caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. Interviews explored caregivers' experiences as patients transitioned out of active cancer treatment and neared the end of life. RESULTS: Included in caregivers' characterization of this transition time were three particularly emotionally charged experiences. The first occurred when caregivers felt jolted into awareness that patients were dying.They were startled to realize that patients would die sooner than expected; some expressed frustration that they had not been adequately warned. In the second, caregivers felt conflicted when involved in decisions that pitted patients' preferences against what caregivers felt patients needed, resulting in ambivalence, guilt, and grief. Thirdly, caregivers who felt they did their best for patients expressed fulfillment and gratitude. CONCLUSION: Caregivers of patients with advanced cancer face unique, emotionally charged experiences that can lead to distress and affect care at the end of life. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of these situations may help oncology teams to provide sufficient guidance and support, partner with caregivers to clarify patients' needs, and deliver higher quality care.

Community Oncologists' Decision-Making for Treatment of Older Patients With Cancer.

Background: This study's objectives were to describe community oncologists' beliefs about and confidence with geriatric care and to determine whether geriatric-relevant information influences cancer treatment decisions. Methods: Community oncologists were recruited to participate in 2 multisite geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence in caring for older adults. They were also asked to make a first-line chemotherapy recommendation (combination vs single-agent vs no chemotherapy) for a hypothetical vignette of an older patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Each oncologist received one randomly chosen vignette that varied on 3 variables: age (72/84 years), impaired function (yes/no), and cognitive impairment (yes/no). Other patient characteristics were held constant. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between oncologist/vignette-patient characteristics and treatment decisions. Results: Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). Most oncologists agreed that "the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved" (89%) and that "geriatrics training is essential" (72%). However, <25% were "very confident" in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.01; 95% CI, 2.73-9.20), normal cognition (aOR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.01-9.76), and being functionally intact (aOR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.12-7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 oncologists (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: aOR, 3.22; 95% CI 1.43-7.25, impaired cognition: aOR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.36-7.20, impaired function: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.12-5.72). Oncologists' characteristics were not associated with decisions about providing chemotherapy. Conclusion: Geriatric-relevant information, when available, strongly influences community oncologists' treatment decisions.

Patient-centred outcomes research: perspectives of patient stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To elicit patient stakeholders' experience and perspectives about patient-centred care. DESIGN: Qualitative. SETTING: A large urban healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Four patient stakeholders who are prostate cancer survivors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Experience and perspectives of patient stakeholders regarding patient-centred care and treatment decisions. RESULTS: Our patient stakeholders represented a diverse socio-demographic group. The patient stakeholders identified engagement and dialogue with physicians as crucial elements of patient-centred care model. The degree of patient-centred care was observed to be dependent on the situations. High severity conditions warranted a higher level of patient involvement, compared to mild conditions. They agreed that patient-centred care should not mean that patients can demand inappropriate treatments. CONCLUSIONS: An important attribute of patient-centred outcomes research model is the involvement of stakeholders. However, we have limited knowledge about the experience of patient stakeholders in patient-centred outcomes research. Our study indicates that patient stakeholders offer a unique perspective as researchers and policy-makers aim to precisely define patient-centred research and care.

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatments for patient-centered outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA Compliant).

BACKGROUND: In the context of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by the multiple alternative treatment strategies, comparative effectiveness analysis is essential for informed decision-making. We analyzed the comparative effectiveness of PCa treatments through systematic review and meta-analysis with a focus on outcomes that matter most to newly diagnosed localized PCa patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of literature published in English from 1995 to October 2016. A search strategy was employed using terms "prostate cancer," "localized," "outcomes," "mortality," "health related quality of life," and "complications" to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective studies. For observational studies, only those adjusting for selection bias using propensity-score or instrumental-variables approaches were included. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio was used to assess all-cause and disease-specific mortality. Funnel plots were used to assess the level of bias. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 58 articles, of which 29 were RCTs, 6 were prospective studies, and 23 were retrospective studies. The studies provided moderate data for the patient-centered outcome of mortality. Radical prostatectomy demonstrated mortality benefit compared to watchful waiting (all-cause HR = 0.63 CI = 0.45, 0.87; disease-specific HR = 0.48 CI = 0.40, 0.58), and radiation therapy (all-cause HR = 0.65 CI = 0.57, 0.74; disease-specific HR = 0.51 CI = 0.40, 0.65). However, we had minimal comparative information about tradeoffs between and within treatment for other patient-centered outcomes in the short and long-term. CONCLUSION: Lack of patient-centered outcomes in comparative effectiveness research in localized PCa is a major hurdle to informed and shared decision-making. More rigorous studies that can integrate patient-centered and intermediate outcomes in addition to mortality are needed.