Development, implementation and evaluation of patient decision aids supporting shared decision making in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) and use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) are key components in patient-centered care in relapsed ovarian cancer. This paper describes the development and implementation process of PtDAs into a clinical routine in three departments. Methods: Two PtDAs were developed in collaboration between patients and clinicians. Acceptability and usability of the PtDAs were tested on clinicians and patients using items from the internationally validated questionnaire "Preparation for Decision Making Scale". Results: Ten patients and 15 clinicians participated in the study. Most patients indicated that PtDAs would be helpful as preparation for the decision-making process with the clinicians. Ten (75%) of the clinicians responded that the PtDAs helped the patients to understand the benefits and disadvantages of each treatment option. Generally, the clinicians indicated that they would use SDM if they had a PtDA tailored to the clinical situation. Conclusions: Two PtDAs were systematically developed, tested, and implemented thereby supporting an SDM intervention. The PtDAs are still in use at the participating departments. Innovation: This study was successful in reusing a generic template for a patient decision aid (PtDA) developed at one institution and implemented in two other institutions. This was guided by a well-described systematic development process for PtDAs.

Shared decision making in recurrent ovarian cancer: Implementation of patient decision aids across three departments of oncology in Denmark.

Objective: Patients with relapsed ovarian cancer are offered multiple treatment options. To match treatment with the individual patient's life situation and preferences, healthcare professionals can apply shared decision making (SDM) including patient decision aids (PtDAs).This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of two different PtDAs in consultations with patients suffering from relapsed ovarian cancer. Methods: We analyzed the following data before and after implementation of the PtDAs: 1) observed SDM using the OPTION instrument, 2) physician treatment recommendations, and 3) patients' and physicians' evaluations of SDM in consultations using the CollaboRATE, SDM-Q-9, and SDM-Q-Doc. Results: Significant improvement in observed SDM was found after the implementation (p = 0.002). Improvement of SDM was detected in consultations conducted by physicians reporting more than two hours of SDM-training (p < 0.001), but not when physicians reported less than two hours of SDM-training.No before/after differences in treatment recommendations and in patients' and physicians' evaluations were found. Conclusion: Implementation of PtDAs improved the level of observed SDM. Training of physicians in SDM is necessary for improved SDM practice. Innovation: Discussing oncological treatment options with the use of PtDAs is not standard practice in Denmark. The present study is one of the first Danish studies focusing on how to implement SDM and PtDAs in oncological consultations.

Treatment and Survival in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Urothelial, Ovarian, Gastric and Kidney Cancer: A Nationwide Comprehensive Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Few studies have described real-world treatment patterns and survival before the widespread use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to describe anti-cancer treatment including the use of programmed cell death-1 and ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) ICIs and overall survival (OS) in advanced cancer patients as a benchmarking real-world standard before widespread use of ICIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using nationwide Danish medical registries, we assembled cohorts of Danish patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n=12,283), urothelial carcinoma (n=2504), epithelial ovarian cancer (n=1466), gastric adenocarcinoma (n=1457), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (n=1261) diagnosed between 1/1/2013 and 31/12/2017. We describe anti-cancer treatment and OS using proportions, medians, and Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Between 9% (ovarian cancer) and 25% (gastric adenocarcinoma) of patients did not receive anti-cancer treatment. The remaining patients received surgery, radiation therapy, and/or medical therapy. Chemotherapy was the most frequent medical therapy in all cohorts except for RCC (tyrosine kinase inhibitors). PD-L1/PD-1 ICIs were used in 7-8% of the NSCLC and RCC cohorts-mainly as second or higher line treatments. OS was longest in patients starting treatment with surgery (eg 25.6 months [95%-confidence interval (CI)=21.9-29.4] for NSCLC and 21.4 months [95%-CI=19.8-23.5] for urothelial carcinoma) and shortest for radiation therapy (eg 3.9 months [95%-CI=3.6-4.2] for NSCLC and 12.6 months [95%-CI=9.2-17.5] for urothelial carcinoma). NSCLC patients starting with medical therapy had OS between these limits. Median OS for NSCLC patients starting treatment with PD-L1/PD-1 ICIs was 21.4 months (95%-CI=13.9-not estimable). CONCLUSION: Most patients with advanced NSCLC, urothelial carcinoma, epithelial ovarian cancer, gastric adenocarcinoma and RCC had poor OS in an era where only a minority received PD-L1/PD-1 ICIs. This information on treatment patterns and survival is important as a benchmarking real-world standard before widespread use of ICIs.

The PROMova study comparing active and passive use of patient-reported outcome measures in ovarian cancer follow-up: effect on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, and usefulness.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ovarian cancer often experience substantial health problems and side effects resulting in reduced quality of life (QoL). Different models of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during follow-up may improve the quality of care. This national, multicenter observational study investigated the effect of active use of PROMs on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL during follow-up of ovarian cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ovarian cancer patients were recruited at the end of primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. During 18 months of follow-up patients repeatedly completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires covering health related QoL and symptoms. At the sites using PROMs actively (ACT), the clinician had access to an overview of the patient's scores during the clinical encounter. Clinicians using PROMs passively were alerted in case of severe development of symptoms. Following each encounter, patients evaluated their health service experience by completing the CollaboRATE scale of involvement in decision making, the Patient Experience Questionnaire, and ad hoc questions covering patient-perceived usefulness of the PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients were enrolled, i.e., 168 (75.3%) at five sites using ACT and 53 (23.8%) at three sites using them passively. We found no statistically significant difference in involvement in the decision making, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL between the two groups. The majority of patients found it useful to complete the PROMs, although it did not seem to significantly support them in raising issues with the oncologist. CONCLUSION: Active use of PROMs did not improve patients' experience of involvement in follow-up care as compared to passive use.