Inventory of oncologists' unmet needs for tools to support decision-making about palliative treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making about palliative care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) consists of many different treatment-related decisions, and there generally is no best treatment option. Decision support systems (DSS), e.g., prognostic calculators, can aid oncologists' decision-making. DSS that contain features tailored to the needs of oncologists are more likely to be implemented in clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to inventory colorectal cancer specialists' unmet decision support needs. METHODS: We asked oncologists from the Dutch colorectal cancer group (DCCG), to participate in an online inventory questionnaire on their unmet decision support needs. To get more in-depth insight in required features of the DSS they need, we also conducted semi-structured telephone interviews. RESULTS: Forty-one oncologists started the inventory questionnaire, and 27 of them completed all items. Of all respondents, 18 were surgeons (44%), 22 were medical oncologists (54%), and 28 (68%) had more than 10 years of experience treating mCRC. In both the inventory questionnaire and interviews, respondents expressed a need for an overarching DSS incorporating multiple treatment options, and presenting both the treatment benefits and harms. Respondents found it relevant for other outcomes, such as cost-effectiveness of treatment or quality of life, to be incorporated in DSS. There was also a wish for DSS incorporating an up-to-date "personalized" overview of the ongoing trials for which a specific patient is eligible. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced oncologists indicate that their treatment advice is currently almost solely based on the available clinical guidelines. They experience a lack of good quality DSS to help them personalize their treatment advice. New tools integrating multiple treatment options and providing a broad range of clinically relevant outcomes are urgently needed to stimulate and safeguard more personalized treatment decision-making.

Clinical Usefulness of Tools to Support Decision-making for Palliative Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making regarding palliative treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is complex and comprises numerous decisions. Decision-making should be guided by the premise of maintaining and/or improving patients' quality of life, by patient preference, and by the trade-off between treatment benefits and harm. Decision support systems (DSSs) for clinicians (eg, nomograms) can assist in this process. The present systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the available DSSs for incurable mCRC and to assess their clinical usefulness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We extracted information on the DSS characteristics and their discriminatory ability, calibration, and user-friendliness. RESULTS: From 5205 studies, we identified 14 DSSs for decisions regarding palliative resection of the primary tumor (n = 3), radiotherapy for metastases (n = 2), treatment type (invasive vs. symptomatic only; n = 7), and selection of chemotherapy (n = 2). The predictors varied greatly among the DSSs, and only 1 DSS incorporated a genetic marker (ie, UGT1A1). None of the DSSs included > 1 treatment option, nor did any DSS present estimates of treatment benefits and harms. Five tools had not been externally validated, two had only been validated in < 35 patients, and the rest had only been validated in populations similar to the population used for their development. Discriminatory accuracy was generally moderate to poor. Calibration measures were only reported for 2 tools. CONCLUSION: A limited number of DSSs are available to support palliative treatment decisions for patients with mCRC, and the evidence regarding their discriminatory ability and calibration is too limited to recommend their use. New DSSs comparing multiple treatment options and presenting both treatment benefits and harms are needed.