Peter R Dixon1,2, George Tomlinson2, Jesse David Pasternak3, Ozgur Mete4, Chaim M Bell2,5, Anna M Sawka6, David P Goldstein1, David R Urbach2,3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, University Health Network, Women's College Hospital, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: The cancer disease label may lead to overtreatment of low-risk malignant neoplasms owing to a patient's emotional response or misunderstanding of prognosis. Decision making should be driven by risks and benefits of treatment and prognosis rather than disease label. Objective: To determine whether disease label plays a role in patient decision making in the setting of low-risk malignant neoplasms and to determine how the magnitude of the disease-label effect compares with preferences for treatment and prognosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A discrete choice experiment conducted using an online survey of 1314 US residents in which participants indicated their preferences between a series of 2 hypothetical vignettes describing the incidental discovery of a small thyroid lesion. Vignettes varied on 3 attributes: disease label (cancer, tumor, or nodule); treatment (active surveillance or hemithyroidectomy); and risk of progression or recurrence (0%, 1%, 2%, or 5%). The independent associations of each attribute with likelihood of vignette selection was estimated with a Bayesian mixed logit model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The preference weight of the cancer disease label was compared with preference weights for other attributes. Results: In 1068 predominantly healthy respondents (605 women and 463 men) with a median age of 35 years (range, 18-78 years), the cancer disease label played a considerable role in respondent decision making independent of treatment offered and risk of progression or recurrence. Participants accepted a 4-percentage-point increase in risk of progression or recurrence (from 1% to 5%) to avoid labeling their disease as cancer in favor of nodule (marginal rate of substitution [MRS], 1.0; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.9-1.1). Preference for the nodule label instead of cancer was similar in magnitude to the preference for active surveillance over surgery (MRS, 1.0; 95% CrI, 0.9-1.1). Conclusions and Relevance: Disease label plays a role in patient preference independent of treatment risks or prognosis. Raising the threshold for biopsy or removing the word cancer from the disease label may mitigate patient preference for aggressive treatment of low-risk lesions. Health care professionals should emphasize treatment risks and benefits and natural disease history when supporting treatment decisions for potentially innocuous epithelial malignant neoplasms.
Importance: The cancer disease label may lead to overtreatment of low-risk malignant neoplasms owing to a patient's emotional response or misunderstanding of prognosis. Decision making should be driven by risks and benefits of treatment and prognosis rather than disease label. Objective: To determine whether disease label plays a role in patient decision making in the setting of low-risk malignant neoplasms and to determine how the magnitude of the disease-label effect compares with preferences for treatment and prognosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A discrete choice experiment conducted using an online survey of 1314 US residents in which participants indicated their preferences between a series of 2 hypothetical vignettes describing the incidental discovery of a small thyroid lesion. Vignettes varied on 3 attributes: disease label (cancer, tumor, or nodule); treatment (active surveillance or hemithyroidectomy); and risk of progression or recurrence (0%, 1%, 2%, or 5%). The independent associations of each attribute with likelihood of vignette selection was estimated with a Bayesian mixed logit model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The preference weight of the cancer disease label was compared with preference weights for other attributes. Results: In 1068 predominantly healthy respondents (605 women and 463 men) with a median age of 35 years (range, 18-78 years), the cancer disease label played a considerable role in respondent decision making independent of treatment offered and risk of progression or recurrence. Participants accepted a 4-percentage-point increase in risk of progression or recurrence (from 1% to 5%) to avoid labeling their disease as cancer in favor of nodule (marginal rate of substitution [MRS], 1.0; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.9-1.1). Preference for the nodule label instead of cancer was similar in magnitude to the preference for active surveillance over surgery (MRS, 1.0; 95% CrI, 0.9-1.1). Conclusions and Relevance: Disease label plays a role in patient preference independent of treatment risks or prognosis. Raising the threshold for biopsy or removing the word cancer from the disease label may mitigate patient preference for aggressive treatment of low-risk lesions. Health care professionals should emphasize treatment risks and benefits and natural disease history when supporting treatment decisions for potentially innocuous epithelial malignant neoplasms.
Authors: Zehra B Omer; E Shelley Hwang; Laura J Esserman; Rebecca Howe; Elissa M Ozanne Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Yuri E Nikiforov; Raja R Seethala; Giovanni Tallini; Zubair W Baloch; Fulvio Basolo; Lester D R Thompson; Justine A Barletta; Bruce M Wenig; Abir Al Ghuzlan; Kennichi Kakudo; Thomas J Giordano; Venancio A Alves; Elham Khanafshar; Sylvia L Asa; Adel K El-Naggar; William E Gooding; Steven P Hodak; Ricardo V Lloyd; Guy Maytal; Ozgur Mete; Marina N Nikiforova; Vania Nosé; Mauro Papotti; David N Poller; Peter M Sadow; Arthur S Tischler; R Michael Tuttle; Kathryn B Wall; Virginia A LiVolsi; Gregory W Randolph; Ronald A Ghossein Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Edward F Patz; Paul Pinsky; Constantine Gatsonis; Jorean D Sicks; Barnett S Kramer; Martin C Tammemägi; Caroline Chiles; William C Black; Denise R Aberle Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jesse Jansen; Phyllis N Butow; Julia C M van Weert; Sandra van Dulmen; Rhonda J Devine; Thea J Heeren; Jozien M Bensing; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brooke Nickel; Alexandra Barratt; Kevin McGeechan; Juan P Brito; Ray Moynihan; Kirsten Howard; Kirsten McCaffery Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Anna M Sawka; Sangeet Ghai; George Tomlinson; Lorne Rotstein; Ralph Gilbert; Patrick Gullane; Jesse Pasternak; Dale Brown; John de Almeida; Jonathan Irish; Douglas Chepeha; Kevin Higgins; Eric Monteiro; Jennifer M Jones; Amiram Gafni; David P Goldstein Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katie A Greenzang; Hasan Al-Sayegh; Clement Ma; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Eve Wittenberg; Jennifer W Mack Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Matthew T Hudnall; Anuj S Desai; Kyle P Tsai; Adam B Weiner; Amanda X Vo; Oliver S Ko; Stephen Jan; Edward M Schaeffer; Shilajit D Kundu Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Jayden Blackwood; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ken Ho; Maria Fleseriu; Ursula Kaiser; Roberto Salvatori; Thierry Brue; M Beatriz Lopes; Pamela Kunz; Mark Molitch; Sally A Camper; Mônica Gadelha; Luis V Syro; Edward Laws; Martin Reincke; Hiroshi Nishioka; Ashley Grossman; Ariel Barkan; Felipe Casanueva; John Wass; Adam Mamelak; Laurence Katznelson; Aart J van der Lely; Sally Radovick; Martin Bidlingmaier; Margaret Boguszewski; Jens Bollerslev; Andrew R Hoffman; Nelson Oyesiku; Gerald Raverot; Anat Ben-Shlomo; Rob Fowkes; Ilan Shimon; Hidenori Fukuoka; Alberto M Pereira; Yona Greenman; Anthony P Heaney; Mark Gurnell; Gudmundur Johannsson; Robert Y Osamura; Michael Buchfelder; Maria Chiara Zatelli; Marta Korbonits; Philippe Chanson; Nienke Biermasz; David R Clemmons; Niki Karavitaki; Marcello D Bronstein; Peter Trainer; Shlomo Melmed Journal: J Endocr Soc Date: 2021-02-09
Authors: Victoria Kuta; David Forner; Jason Azzi; Dennis Curry; Christopher W Noel; Kelti Munroe; Martin Bullock; Ted McDonald; S Mark Taylor; Matthew H Rigby; Jonathan Trites; Stephanie Johnson-Obaseki; Martin J Corsten Journal: OTO Open Date: 2021-06-24