Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Dec 31;21(1):374.
doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01732-2.

A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making

Affiliations

A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making

Hilary P Bagshaw et al. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. .

Abstract

Background: A shared decision-making model is preferred for engaging prostate cancer patients in treatment decisions. However, the process of assessing an individual's preferences and values is challenging and not formalized. The purpose of this study is to develop an automated decision aid for patient-centric treatment decision-making using decision analysis, preference thresholds and value elicitations to maximize the compatibility between a patient's treatment expectations and outcome.

Methods: A template for patient-centric medical decision-making was constructed. The inputs included prostate cancer risk group, pre-treatment health state, treatment alternatives (primarily focused on radiation in this model), side effects (erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence), and treatment success (5-year freedom from biochemical failure). A linear additive value function was used to combine the values for each attribute (side effects, success and the alternatives) into a value for all prospects. The patient-reported toxicity probabilities were derived from phase II and III trials. The probabilities are conditioned on the starting state for each of the side effects. Toxicity matrices for erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, nocturia and bowel incontinence were created for the treatment alternatives. Toxicity probability thresholds were obtained by identifying the patient's maximum acceptable threshold for each of the side effects. Results are represented as a visual. R and Rstudio were used to perform analyses, and R Shiny for application creation.

Results: We developed a web-based decision aid. Based on preliminary use of the application, every treatment alternative could be the best choice for a decision maker with a particular set of preferences. This result implies that no treatment has determinist dominance over the remaining treatments and that a preference-based approach can help patients through their decision-making process, potentially affecting compliance with treatment, tolerance of side effects and satisfaction with the decision.

Conclusions: We present a unique patient-centric prostate cancer treatment decision aid that systematically assesses and incorporates a patient's preferences and values to rank treatment options by likelihood of achieving the preferred outcome. This application enables the practice and study of personalized medicine. This model can be expanded to include additional inputs, such as genomics, as well as competing, concurrent or sequential therapies.

Keywords: Decision aid; Personalized medicine; Prostate cancer; Radiation therapy preference based decisions; Shared decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Erectile dysfunction toxicity table. Changes in erectile function are displayed comparing pre-treatment erectile function and post-treatment erectile function as percentage of potency. The percentage of patients with 0, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% erectile function post-treatment is displayed. For example, for the 46 patients that had 100% potency pre-treatment, only 17.39% retained 100% potency post treatment
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The decision aid online information entry pages. This web-based aid is our own independent work, not taken from elsewhere. A Patient information page, where patients enter their risk group and current health state. B Threshold page, where patients enter their personal thresholds. C Uncertainty value page, where patients enter how much they would be willing to pay to avoid a certain situation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The Decision Aid online results page. This web-based aid is our own independent work, not taken from elsewhere. Directions are displayed on the left-hand side along with information entry pages if the user clicks on different headings (as showing in Fig. 2). The results are displayed on the right-hand side of the screen, which adjust in real time based on the inputs on the left-hand side. This version uses willingness to pay to display results, thus depicted as monetary value. [EBRT external beam radiation therapy, ADT androgen deprivation therapy, HDR high dose rate brachytherapy]

References

    1. Society AC. “Prostate Cancer” 2020. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer.html.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pena A, Qian Z, Lambrechts S, Cabri JN, Weiser C, Liu H, et al. Evaluation of implementation outcomes after initiation of a shared decision-making program for men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2019;132:94–100. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.06.032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elwyn G, Cochran N, Pignone M. Shared decision making-the importance of diagnosing preferences. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(9):1239–1240. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1923. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adya M, Phillips-Wren G. Stressed decision makers and use of decision aids: a literature review and conceptual model. Inf Technol People. 2019;33(2):710–754. doi: 10.1108/ITP-04-2019-0194. - DOI