Donald R Sullivan1, Karen B Eden2, Nathan F Dieckmann3, Sara E Golden4, Kelly C Vranas5, Shannon M Nugent6, Christopher G Slatore7. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM), Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), United States; Health Services Research & Development, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS), United States; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Knight Cancer Institute, OHSU, United States. Electronic address: sullivad@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, United States. 3. School of Nursing, United States; Department of Psychiatry, OHSU Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States. 4. Health Services Research & Development, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS), United States. 5. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM), Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), United States; Health Services Research & Development, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS), United States. 6. Health Services Research & Development, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS), United States; Department of Psychiatry, OHSU Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States. 7. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM), Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), United States; Health Services Research & Development, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPHCS), United States; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Knight Cancer Institute, OHSU, United States; Section of PCCM, VAPORHCS, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With advances in treatments among patients with lung cancer, it is increasingly important to understand patients' values and preferences to facilitate shared decision making. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter study of patients with treated stage I lung cancer. At the time of study participation, participants were 4-6 months posttreatment. Value clarification and discrete choice methods were used to elicit participants' values and treatment preferences regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection using only treatment attributes. RESULTS: Among 114 participants, mean age was 70 years (Standard Deviation = 7.9), 65% were male, 68 (60%) received SBRT and 46 (40%) received surgery. More participants valued independence and quality of life (QOL) as "most important" compared to survival or cancer recurrence. Most participants (83%) were willing to accept lung cancer treatment with a 2% chance of periprocedural death for only one additional year of life. Participants also valued independence more than additional years of life as most (86%) were unwilling to accept either permanent placement in a nursing home or being limited to a bed/chair for four additional years of life. Surprisingly, treatment discordance was common as 49% of participants preferred the alternative lung cancer treatment than what they received. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with early stage lung cancer, maintaining independence and QOL were more highly valued than survival or cancer recurrence. Participants were willing to accept high periprocedural mortality, but not severe deficits affecting QOL when considering treatment. Treatment discordance was common among participants who received SBRT or surgery. Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to foster shared decision making and ensure treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals. Clinicians need more resources to engage in high quality communication during lung cancer treatment discussions.
INTRODUCTION: With advances in treatments among patients with lung cancer, it is increasingly important to understand patients' values and preferences to facilitate shared decision making. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter study of patients with treated stage I lung cancer. At the time of study participation, participants were 4-6 months posttreatment. Value clarification and discrete choice methods were used to elicit participants' values and treatment preferences regarding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection using only treatment attributes. RESULTS: Among 114 participants, mean age was 70 years (Standard Deviation = 7.9), 65% were male, 68 (60%) received SBRT and 46 (40%) received surgery. More participants valued independence and quality of life (QOL) as "most important" compared to survival or cancer recurrence. Most participants (83%) were willing to accept lung cancer treatment with a 2% chance of periprocedural death for only one additional year of life. Participants also valued independence more than additional years of life as most (86%) were unwilling to accept either permanent placement in a nursing home or being limited to a bed/chair for four additional years of life. Surprisingly, treatment discordance was common as 49% of participants preferred the alternative lung cancer treatment than what they received. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with early stage lung cancer, maintaining independence and QOL were more highly valued than survival or cancer recurrence. Participants were willing to accept high periprocedural mortality, but not severe deficits affecting QOL when considering treatment. Treatment discordance was common among participants who received SBRT or surgery. Understanding patients' values and preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to foster shared decision making and ensure treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals. Clinicians need more resources to engage in high quality communication during lung cancer treatment discussions.
Authors: F V Dinescu; C Ţiple; Magdalena Chirilă; R Mureşan; T Drugan; M Cosgarea Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Syed H Tariq; Nina Tumosa; John T Chibnall; Mitchell H Perry; John E Morley Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Jeff A Sloan; Xinghua Zhao; Paul J Novotny; Jason Wampfler; Yolanda Garces; Matthew M Clark; Ping Yang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julia Kravchenko; Mark Berry; Konstantin Arbeev; H Kim Lyerly; Anatoly Yashin; Igor Akushevich Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Mara Mather; Nina Mazar; Marissa A Gorlick; Nichole R Lighthall; Jessica Burgeno; Andrej Schoeke; Dan Ariely Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2012-10-15
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Patricia M Kenny; Madeleine T King; Rosalie C Viney; Michael J Boyer; Christine A Pollicino; Jocelyn M McLean; Michael J Fulham; Brian C McCaughan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shannon M Nugent; Sara E Golden; Donald R Sullivan; Charles R Thomas; Juan Wisnivesky; Somnath Saha; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Ana C De Roo; Crystal Ann Vitous; Samantha J Rivard; Michaela C Bamdad; Sara M Jafri; Mary E Byrnes; Pasithorn A Suwanabol Journal: Surgery Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 4.348
Authors: Jelle E Bousema; Fieke Hoeijmakers; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Jouke T Annema; Frank J C van den Broek; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 2.711