Montori, Victor

Abstract Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death, and the most common cancer diagnosed globally. Approximately 85% of lung cancer cases are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). After initial surgical treatment, adjuvant therapy with conventional or targeted chemotherapy can help optimize survival. These treatments, however, must be tailored to each patients’ problematic situation, including cancer characteristics and goals of care. Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to form plans of care that advance the patient’s problematic human situation. This method often requires evaluating alternative options, “trying them on” for fit given their practical demands and favorable and unfavorable effects. Tools used within the encounter can facilitate and support SDM conversations, yet none exist for considering care post-surgical treatment of NSCLC. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel encounter tool for SDM, NSCLC Choice, compared to usual care at improving SDM and reducing decisional conflict for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC considering adjuvant treatment. Methods We will conduct a parallel, patient-level randomized trial comparing NSCLC Choice with usual care. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with stage >1B NSCLC eligible for postsurgical adjuvant chemotherapy. Allocation will be central and post-consent. Patients will be blinded to our trial hypothesis, instead of being invited to evaluate an educational intervention. Our primary outcome is SDM quality, which we will assess using participant reported measures (patient SDM-Q-9) obtained immediately post-encounter and an observer measure estimated from video recording of trial encounters in both arms (OPTION12). With resources to conduct a 100-patient trial, we will have >80% power to detect a 12-point medium difference between arms in patient-reported SDM-Q-9. We will also assess the secondary outcomes of knowledge about the disease and the features of treatment options using an ad hoc questionnaire, decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale, and patient and clinician satisfaction using the metrics used in prior SDM intervention trials. We will also determine encounter length using video recordings. Discussion In testing NSCLC Choice, we seek to determine the extent to which this intervention can improve care for patients with NSCLC considering adjuvant therapy after surgery. In addition, we expect to determine whether this intervention is satisfactory to participants and feasible in practice. If successful, this study will result in an evidence-based tool for promoting patient-centered conversations around NSCLC and cancer care those fits. Trial Registration: NCT06122064 ClinicalTrials.gov

Abstract Background The self-management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically requires enacting various lifestyle changes, which can challenge people living with T2D. Clinical encounters between people with T2D and their clinicians, however, are often focused on metabolic management, leaving less time available for other self-management topics. The QBSAFE cards help patients articulate aspects of their experience with diabetes and prioritize issues for discussion. Methods This report details secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial; primary outcomes are reported elsewhere. All data was collected at Fair Haven Community Health Care, a federally qualified primary care clinic. 11 clinicians were randomly assigned to provide either usual care or usual care with QBSAFE cards to 155 of their patients with type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c >8%. All patient encounters were video recorded for analysis. Patients and clinicians were not blinded to arm allocation but were kept unaware of the specific aims of the trial. Encounter video reviewers were blinded to arm allocation, but not to specific aims of the trial. The outcomes of interest for this report were the extent to which the QBSAFE cards were used as intended, their effect on the topics of discussion, and whether they enabled clinicians to notice and respond to each patient’s situation; comparisons between arms were conducted by a linear mixed model with fixed effect of arm and cluster effect of clinician, analyzed in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Findings 12 patients were excluded post-randomization (A1c <8%). Of 143 eligible patients, 137 encounters (65 in the usual care arm, 72 in QBSAFE) yielded evaluable videos. QBSAFE was used as intended in 61 (85%) QBSAFE arm encounters. Conversations about burden of treatment related to non-pharmacological interventions (17 vs 33, p = 0·04) and taking medications (11 vs 33, p = 0·0008) and about the patient’s challenging environment (2 vs 10, p = 0·04) were more prevalent in the QBSAFE group. There was no difference in the rate of conversations about metabolic management or of new care plans as a result of conversations between groups. Interpretation While there was a difference in the types of conversations observed between the two study arms, this difference was small and only apparent in a few domains. Future work could aim to modify the QBSAFE cards to more effectively stimulate patient-centered discussions and to further prepare clinicians to respond to a variety of issues raised during the clinical visit. Funding This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK129616).

ABSTRACT Background Effective interventions are needed to support co-creation of diabetes care plans that fit patients’ lives. We evaluated the QBSafe agenda-setting kit (14 conversation cards) for its impact on care fit and glycemic control when added to usual primary care. Methods This single-center, clinician-level cluster-randomized, open-label trial was conducted at a federally qualified health center in New Haven, Connecticut ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05553912 ). Clinicians and their patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c >8% were randomized 1:1 to usual care with or without QBSafe cards. In the intervention arm, patients selected up to 3 cards highlighting concerns about life with diabetes prior to their visit. Primary outcomes were change at 6 months in care fit (Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, IIRS) and HbA1c, analyzed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were treatment burden (Treatment Burden Questionnaire, TBQ) and diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale, DDS), and satisfaction with visits. Results Between February 2023 and July 2024, 143 participants (mean age 56 years; 61% female; 73% Hispanic; mean HbA1c 10%) were enrolled: 74 received usual care with QBSafe, 69 usual care alone. At 6 months, there were no significant between-arm differences in changes in IIRS (−3.9 [95% CI -10.4, 2.6]), HbA1c (−0.2% [95% CI -0.9, 0.5]), TBQ (1.0 [95% CI -16.6, 18.6]), or DDS (−0.1 [95% CI -0.4, 0.2]). Clinicians reported greater satisfaction when using QBSafe. Patient satisfaction was high and did not differ across arms. Conclusions QBSafe cards improved clinician satisfaction but did not improve care fit or glycemic control. Future tools should focus on helping clinicians respond effectively to patient-identified challenges.

This Viewpoint discusses the practice of molecular testing for the classification of thyroid nodules and explores related questions regarding automation, transparency, and clinical reasoning.