Timothy J. Whelan

Shared Decision-making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (Or, It Takes at Least Two to Tango)

Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.

Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model.

In this paper we revisit and add elements to our earlier conceptual framework on shared treatment decision-making within the context of different decision-making approaches in the medical encounter (Charles, C., Gafni, A., Whelan, T., 1997. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or, it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 44, 681 692.). This revised framework (1) explicitly identifies different analytic steps in the treatment decision-making process; (2) provides a dynamic view of treatment decision-making by recognizing that the approach adopted at the outset of a medical encounter may change as the interaction evolves; (3) identifies decision-making approaches which lie between the three predominant models (paternalistic, shared and informed) and (4) has practical applications for clinical practice, research and medical education. Rather than advocating a particular approach, we emphasize the importance of flexibility in the way that physicians structure the decision-making process so that individual differences in patient preferences can be respected.

Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials.

Summary Background After breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy reduces recurrence and breast cancer death, but it may do so more for some groups of women than for others. We describe the absolute magnitude of these reductions according to various prognostic and other patient characteristics, and relate the absolute reduction in 15-year risk of breast cancer death to the absolute reduction in 10-year recurrence risk. Methods We undertook a meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10 801 women in 17 randomised trials of radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery, 8337 of whom had pathologically confirmed node-negative (pN0) or node-positive (pN+) disease. Findings Overall, radiotherapy reduced the 10-year risk of any (ie, locoregional or distant) first recurrence from 35·0% to 19·3% (absolute reduction 15·7%, 95% CI 13·7–17·7, 2p<0·00001) and reduced the 15-year risk of breast cancer death from 25·2% to 21·4% (absolute reduction 3·8%, 1·6–6·0, 2p=0·00005). In women with pN0 disease (n=7287), radiotherapy reduced these risks from 31·0% to 15·6% (absolute recurrence reduction 15·4%, 13·2–17·6, 2p<0·00001) and from 20·5% to 17·2% (absolute mortality reduction 3·3%, 0·8–5·8, 2p=0·005), respectively. In these women with pN0 disease, the absolute recurrence reduction varied according to age, grade, oestrogen-receptor status, tamoxifen use, and extent of surgery, and these characteristics were used to predict large (≥20%), intermediate (10–19%), or lower (<10%) absolute reductions in the 10-year recurrence risk. Absolute reductions in 15-year risk of breast cancer death in these three prediction categories were 7·8% (95% CI 3·1–12·5), 1·1% (–2·0 to 4·2), and 0·1% (–7·5 to 7·7) respectively (trend in absolute mortality reduction 2p=0·03). In the few women with pN+ disease (n=1050), radiotherapy reduced the 10-year recurrence risk from 63·7% to 42·5% (absolute reduction 21·2%, 95% CI 14·5–27·9, 2p<0·00001) and the 15-year risk of breast cancer death from 51·3% to 42·8% (absolute reduction 8·5%, 1·8–15·2, 2p=0·01). Overall, about one breast cancer death was avoided by year 15 for every four recurrences avoided by year 10, and the mortality reduction did not differ significantly from this overall relationship in any of the three prediction categories for pN0 disease or for pN+ disease. Interpretation After breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy to the conserved breast halves the rate at which the disease recurs and reduces the breast cancer death rate by about a sixth. These proportional benefits vary little between different groups of women. By contrast, the absolute benefits from radiotherapy vary substantially according to the characteristics of the patient and they can be predicted at the time when treatment decisions need to be made. Funding Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, and UK Medical Research Council.Breast-conserving surgery can excise all detected macroscopic tumor tissue in women with early-stage breast cancer. However, the presence of microscopic tumor foci in the conserved breast of these women, if untreated, may lead to locoregional recurrence and/or life-threatening distant recurrence. Radiotherapy in the conserved breast after surgery may reduce rates of recurrence and breast cancer death more among some groups of women than in others. This meta-analysis assessed the extent to which the absolute reduction by radiotherapy in 10-year risk of first recurrence differs among women with different prognostic and other characteristics and relates the absolute reduction in the 15-year risk of breast cancer death to the absolute reduction in the 10-year recurrence risk. 92 Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey

Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process

Abstract Objective To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design and setting Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Participants Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains ona1to9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Main outcome measure Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. Results 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Conclusions Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

Long-Term Results of Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND The optimal fractionation schedule for whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery is unknown. METHODS We conducted a study to determine whether a hypofractionated 3-week schedule of whole-breast irradiation is as effective as a 5-week schedule. Women with invasive breast cancer who had undergone breast-conserving surgery and in whom resection margins were clear and axillary lymph nodes were negative were randomly assigned to receive whole-breast irradiation either at a standard dose of 50.0 Gy in 25 fractions over a period of 35 days (the control group) or at a dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions over a period of 22 days (the hypofractionated-radiation group). RESULTS The risk of local recurrence at 10 years was 6.7% among the 612 women assigned to standard irradiation as compared with 6.2% among the 622 women assigned to the hypofractionated regimen (absolute difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.5 to 3.5). At 10 years, 71.3% of women in the control group as compared with 69.8% of the women in the hypofractionated-radiation group had a good or excellent cosmetic outcome (absolute difference, 1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to 9.8). CONCLUSIONS Ten years after treatment, accelerated, hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation was not inferior to standard radiation treatment in women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer with clear surgical margins and negative axillary nodes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00156052.)

Meta-analysis of dose-fractionation radiotherapy trials for the palliation of painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE To compare pain relief among various dose-fractionation schedules of localized radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of painful bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic search for randomized trials of localized RT on bone metastases using different dose fractionations was performed using Medline (1966 to February 2001) and other sources. The primary outcomes of interest were complete and overall pain relief. The studies were divided into three groups: comparisons of doses given as a single fraction, single vs. multiple fractions, and comparisons of doses given as multiple fractions. The complete and overall pain responses for studies comparing single vs. multiple fractions were pooled. Exploratory analyses of the dose-response relationship, using the biologic effective dose (alpha/beta = 10), were performed using results from all three groups of trials. RESULTS Two trials comparing single vs. single, eight trials comparing single vs. multiple, and six trials comparing multiple vs. multiple fractions were included. The complete and overall response rates from studies comparing single-fraction RT (median 8 Gy, range 8-10 Gy) against multifraction RT (median 20 Gy in 5 fractions, range 20 Gy in 5 fractions to 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were homogeneous and allowed pooling of data. Of 3260 randomized patients in seven studies, 539 (33.4%) of 1613 and 523 (32.3%) of 1618 patients achieved a complete response after single and multifraction RT, respectively, giving a risk ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.94-1.14; p = 0.5). The overall response rate was in favor of single-fraction RT (1011 [62.1%] of 1629) compared with multifraction (958 [58.7%] of 1631; risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.11, p = 0.04), reaching statistical significance. However, when the analysis was restricted to evaluated patients alone, the overall response rates were similar for single fraction and multifraction RT, at 1011 (72.7%) of 1391 and 958 (72.5%) of 1321, respectively (risk ratio 1.00; p = 0.9). Exploratory analyses by biologic effective dose did not reveal any dose-response relationship among the fractionation schedules used (single 8 Gy to 40 Gy in 15 fractions). Of the other results and observations reported in the trials, only the re-irradiation rates were consistently different between the treatment arms (more frequent re-irradiation in lower dose arms among trials reporting re-irradiation rates). CONCLUSION Meta-analysis of reported randomized trials shows no significant difference in complete and overall pain relief between single and multifraction palliative RT for bone metastases. No dose-response relationship could be detected by including data from the multifraction vs. multifraction trials. Additional data are needed to evaluate the role of re-irradiation and the impact of RT on other treatment end points such as quality of life.

Does Locoregional Radiation Therapy Improve Survival in Breast Cancer? A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE Recent randomized trials in women with node-positive breast cancer who received systemic treatment report that locoregional radiation therapy improves survival. Previous trials failed to detect a difference in survival that results from its use. A systematic review of randomized trials that examine the effectiveness of locoregional radiation therapy in patients treated by definitive surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy was conducted. METHODS Randomized trials published between 1967 and 1999 were identified through MEDLINE database, CancerLit database, and reference lists of relevant articles. Relevant data was abstracted. The results of randomized trials were pooled using meta-analyses to estimate the effect of treatment on any recurrence, locoregional recurrence, and mortality. RESULTS Eighteen trials that involved a total of 6,367 patients were identified. Most trials included both pre- and postmenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy. The type of systemic therapy received, sites irradiated, techniques used, and doses of radiation delivered varied between trials. Data on toxicity were infrequently reported. Radiation was shown to reduce the risk of any recurrence (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.83), local recurrence (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.34), and mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.94). CONCLUSION Locoregional radiation after surgery in patients treated with systemic therapy reduced mortality. Several questions remain on how these results should be translated into current-day clinical practice.

Randomized Trial of Long-Term Follow-Up for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Comparison of Family Physician Versus Specialist Care

PURPOSE Most women with breast cancer are diagnosed at an early stage and more than 80% will be long-term survivors. Routine follow-up marks the transition from intensive treatment to survivorship. It is usual practice for routine follow-up to take place in specialist clinics. This study tested the hypothesis that follow-up by the patients family physician is a safe and acceptable alternative to specialist follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted involving 968 patients with early-stage breast cancer who had completed adjuvant treatment, were disease free, and were between 9 and 15 months after diagnosis. Patients may have continued receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy. Patients were randomly allocated to follow-up in the cancer center according to usual practice (CC group) or follow-up from their own family physician (FP group). The primary outcome was the rate of recurrence-related serious clinical events (SCEs). The secondary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS In the FP group, there were 54 recurrences (11.2%) and 29 deaths (6.0%). In the CC group, there were 64 recurrences (13.2%) and 30 deaths (6.2%). In the FP group, 17 patients (3.5%) compared with 18 patients (3.7%) in the CC group experienced an SCE (0.19% difference; 95% CI, -2.26% to 2.65%). No statistically significant differences (P < .05) were detected between groups on any of the HRQL questionnaires. CONCLUSION Breast cancer patients can be offered follow-up by their family physician without concern that important recurrence-related SCEs will occur more frequently or that HRQL will be negatively affected.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Erythropoietin in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Disease-Related Anemia

PURPOSE Previous trials have suggested a quality-of-life (QOL) improvement for anemic cancer patients treated with erythropoietin, but few used QOL as the primary outcome. We designed a trial to investigate the effects of epoetin alfa therapy on the QOL of anemic patients with advanced non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. The proposed sample size was 300 patients. Eligible patients were required to have NSCLC unsuitable for curative therapy and baseline hemoglobin (Hgb) levels less than 121 g/L. Patients were assigned to 12 weekly injections of subcutaneous epoetin alpha or placebo, targeting Hgb levels between 120 and 140 g/L. The primary outcome was the difference in the change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia scores between baseline and 12 weeks. RESULTS Reports of thrombotic events in other epoetin trials prompted an unplanned safety analysis after 70 patients had been randomly assigned (33 to the active arm and 37 to the placebo arm). This revealed a significant difference in the median survival in favor of the patients on the placebo arm of the trial (63 v 129 days; hazard ratio, 1.84; P = .04). The Steering Committee closed the trial. Patient numbers compromised the interpretation of the QOL analysis, but a positive Hgb response was noted with epoetin alfa treatment. CONCLUSION An unplanned safety analysis suggested decreased overall survival in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with epoetin alfa. Although infrequent, other similar reports highlight the need for ongoing trials evaluating erythropoietin receptor agonists to ensure that overall survival is monitored closely.

Radiation Therapy and Tamoxifen: Concurrent or Sequential? That Is the Question

Randomized controlled trials have had an important impact on the treatment of women with early breast cancer. Many women routinely receive breast-conserving surgery plus radiation therapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, or hormonal therapy based on the results of randomized trials. However, despite the extensive use of combinations of chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and radiation therapy, the optimal sequencing of these different adjuvant treatments for patients with early breast cancer remains unclear. Unfortunately, there have been few randomized trials addressing this important issue. In a randomized trial by Recht et al, 1 the optimal sequencing of radiation and chemotherapy in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery was evaluated. Of 244 patients, 122 were allocated to receive radiation therapy before anthracycline-based chemotherapy and 122 were allocated to receive radiation therapy after the same chemotherapy. The median length of follow-up was 58 months. Although the study was relatively small by today’s standards, there was a trend for an increased risk of distant recurrence for patients treated with radiation therapy first (36% v 25%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.62;P .05). As a result, breast irradiation is now usually given after anthracycline-based chemotherapy. In early 1990s, investigators from the North American Breast Intergroup conducted a randomized trial in postmenopausal women with node-positive, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, which compared tamoxifen, administered concurrently with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (n 550) with tamoxifen given after the completion of the same chemotherapy (n 566). 2 This was an important clinical question because there was some concern that the cytostatic effect of concurrent tamoxifen might interfere with the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy on cancer cells. Preclinical data had demonstrated that human breast tumor cells in culture pretreated with tamoxifen were protected from the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. 3 This concern was not shared by all investigators; several cooperative groups recommended the concurrent use of chemotherapy and tamoxifen in trials evaluating these agents. Furthermore, it had already been observed that combined chemotherapy and tamoxifen increased the risk of thromboembolic complications in patients. 4 With a median follow-up of 8.5 years, the results of the Intergroup study were presented at the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. The 8-year disease-free survival estimates were 67% for patients treated with sequential chemotherapy and tamoxifen compared with 62% for patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and tamoxifen (P .05). 2 This study led to important