Stella K Kang1,2, Laura D Scherer3, Alec J Megibow1, Leslie J Higuita4, Nathanael Kim5, R Scott Braithwaite2,6, Angela Fagerlin7. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016. 2. 2 Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. 3. 3 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 4. 4 NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. 5. 5 New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY. 6. 6 Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY. 7. 7 Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery. RESULTS:Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION:Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess differences in patient distress, risk perception, and treatment preferences for incidental renal findings with descriptive versus combined descriptive and numeric graphical risk information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized survey study was conducted for adult patients about to undergo outpatient imaging studies at a large urban academic institution. Two survey arms contained either descriptive or a combination of descriptive and numeric graphical risk information about three hypothetical incidental renal findings at CT: 2-cm (low risk) and 5-cm (high risk) renal tumors and a 2-cm (low risk) renal artery aneurysm. The main outcomes were patient distress, perceived risk (qualitative and quantitative), treatment preference, and valuation of lesion discovery. RESULTS: Of 374 patients, 299 participated (79.9% response rate). With inclusion of numeric and graphical, rather than only descriptive, risk information about disease progression for a 2-cm renal tumor, patients reported less worry (3.56 vs 4.12 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.001) and favored surgical consultation less often (29.3% vs 46.9%; p = 0.003). The proportion choosing surgical consultation for the 2-cm renal tumor decreased to a similar level as for the renal artery aneurysm with numeric risk information (29.3% [95% CI, 21.7-36.8%] and 27.9% [95% CI, 20.5-35.3%], respectively). Patients overestimated the absolute risk of adverse events regardless of risk information type, but significantly more so when given descriptive information only, and valued the discovery of lesions regardless of risk information type (range, 4.41-4.81 on a 5-point scale). CONCLUSION: Numeric graphical risk communication for patients about incidental renal lesions may facilitate accurate risk comprehension and support patients in informed decision making.
Entities:
Keywords:
incidental lesions; renal mass; risk communication; shared decision making
Authors: Michael J Kucharczyk; Ravi J Menezes; Alexander McGregor; Narinder S Paul; Heidi C Roberts Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Marc R Freiman; Jack A Clark; Christopher G Slatore; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: John M Hollingsworth; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Brian L Egleston; Brandon J Manley; Daniel J Canter; Jay Simhan; Stephen A Boorjian; Rosalia Viterbo; David Y T Chen; Richard E Greenberg; Robert G Uzzo Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Dylan M Smith; Holly A Derry; Jennifer B McClure; Azadeh Stark; Rosemarie K Pitsch; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-11
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Penny S Brucker; Hongyan Du; Ronald Bukowski; Nicholas Vogelzang; William P Bro Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: Shailin A Thomas; Mutita Siriruchatanon; Stephanie L Albert; Marc Bjurlin; Jason C Hoffmann; Aisha Langford; R Scott Braithwaite; Danil V Makarov; Angela Fagerlin; Stella K Kang Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 6.240
Authors: Joshua M Evron; David Reyes-Gastelum; Mousumi Banerjee; Laura D Scherer; Lauren P Wallner; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Megan R Haymart Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: L F van de Water; J J van Kleef; W P M Dijksterhuis; I Henselmans; H G van den Boorn; N M Vaarzon Morel; K F Schut; J G Daams; E M A Smets; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.147