Literature DB >> 11809982

Choosing the surgical mortality threshold for high risk patients with stage Ia non-small cell lung cancer: insights from decision analysis.

J Dowie1, M Wildman.   

Abstract

The recent British Thoracic Society guidelines recommend that surgical mortality should not be greater than 8% for pneumonectomy and 4% for lobectomy. These cut offs are advanced as guidelines to inform decision making as to whether or not patients with operable lung cancer should be offered surgery. They have been developed from a notion of what acceptable surgical mortality should be. The planning of care for patients with lung cancer involves making choices between different treatments with different outcomes. While it is accepted that the probability of these outcomes is likely to differ among patients, individual patient preferences for them are also likely to vary. Fixed cut offs for surgical mortality mean ignoring this variation. Decision analysis can be used to assist in the complex task of integrating clinical characteristics and varying patient preferences. By considering high risk patients with potentially curable stage Ia non-small cell lung cancer, it is shown that decision analysis has the potential to illuminate decision making and guideline development within the field of cancer care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11809982      PMCID: PMC1746179          DOI: 10.1136/thorax.57.1.7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  6 in total

1.  Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer.

Authors:  C F Mountain
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  The potential use of decision analysis to support shared decision making in the face of uncertainty: the example of atrial fibrillation and warfarin anticoagulation.

Authors:  A Robinson; R G Thomson
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-12

3.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.

Authors:  B J McNeil; S G Pauker; H C Sox; A Tversky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1982-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  'Evidence-based', 'cost-effective' and 'preference-driven' medicine: decision analysis based medical decision making is the pre-requisite.

Authors:  J Dowie
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1996-04

5.  The curative treatment by radiotherapy alone of stage I non-small cell carcinoma of the lung.

Authors:  S Gauden; J Ramsay; L Tripcony
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision.

Authors:  P S Heckerling; M S Verp; N Albert
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1999 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Seeking consensus by formal methods: a health warning.

Authors:  Carol Tan; Tom Treasure; John Browne; Martin Utley; Christopher W H Davies; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Developing an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) for shared decision making.

Authors:  Mark H Eckman; Ruth E Wise; Katherine Naylor; Lora Arduser; Gregory Y H Lip; Brett Kissela; Matthew Flaherty; Dawn Kleindorfer; Faisal Khan; Daniel P Schauer; John Kues; Alexandru Costea
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 2.580

3.  Impact of Intraoperative Data on Risk Prediction for Mortality After Intra-Abdominal Surgery.

Authors:  Xinyu Yan; Jeff Goldsmith; Sumit Mohan; Zachary A Turnbull; Robert E Freundlich; Frederic T Billings; Ravi P Kiran; Guohua Li; Minjae Kim
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  From Rapid Recommendation to Online Preference-Sensitive Decision Support: The Case of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Jack Dowie; Mette Kjer Kaltoft
Journal:  Med Sci (Basel)       Date:  2018-11-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.