Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients' and oncologists' preferences

Preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) in resectable rectal cancer improves local control but increases probability of faecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Consensus was reached in 2001 in the Netherlands on a guideline advising PRT to new patients. Purpose was to assess at what benefit oncologists and rectal cancer patients prefer PRT followed by surgery to surgery alone, and how oncologists and patients value various treatment outcomes. Sixty-six disease-free patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, medical) were interviewed. Minimally desired benefit from PRT (local control) was assessed using the Treatment Tradeoff Method. Importance of survival, local control, faecal incontinence, and sexual dysfunction in determining treatment outcome preferences was assessed using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. The range of required benefit from PRT varied widely within participant groups. Seventeen percent of patients would choose PRT at a 0% benefit; 11% would not choose PRT for the maximum benefit of 11%. Mean minimally desired benefit excluding these two groups was 4%. For oncologists, the required benefit was 5%. Also, how strongly participants valued treatment outcomes varied widely within groups. Of the four outcomes, participants considered incontinence most often as most important. Relative treatment outcome importance differed between specialties. Patients considered sexual functioning more important than oncologists. Large differences in treatment preferences exist between individual patients and oncologists. Oncologists should adequately inform their patients about the risks and benefits of PRT, and elicit patient preferences regarding treatment outcomes

A blended learning for general practitioners and nurses on skills to support shared decision-making with patients about palliative cancer treatment: A one-group pre-posttest study

Objective: To evaluate a newly developed blended learning programme for general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in supporting shared decision making (SDM) about palliative cancer treatment in a simulated setting. Methods: In a pre-posttest study, healthcare professionals (HCPs) participated in the blended learning (i.e. e-learning and (online) training session). HCPs filled out surveys (T0 (baseline), T1 (after e-learning) and T2 (after full blended learning)) and engaged in simulated consultations at T0 and T2. The primary outcome was observed SDM support (Triple-S; DSAT-10 for validation). Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, knowledge about and attitude towards SDM support. Repeated measures General Linear Models were conducted. Results: 33 HCPs (17 GPs and 16 nurses) participated. SDM support significantly improved after training (Triple-S; medium effect). Observers’ overall rating of SDM support (medium effect) as well as HCPs’ knowledge (large effect) and beliefs about their capabilities (medium effect) improved after training. There was no difference in decision support skills (DSAT-10), HCPs’ other clinical behavioural intentions and satisfaction. HCPs evaluated the training positively. Conclusion: Blended learning for HCPs on supporting SDM in palliative cancer care improved their skills, knowledge and confidence in simulated consultations. Practice implications: These first findings are promising for evaluating interprofessional SDM in clinical practice