Branda, Megan E.

Background: The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD. Methods: GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before–after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC). Results: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making. Conclusions: GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.

Background— Decision aids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM). The extent to which they do so across diverse sociodemographic patient groups is unknown. Methods and Results— We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials of DA versus usual care comprising 771 encounters between patients and clinicians discussing treatment options for chest pain, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis. Using a random effects model, we examined the impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics (age, sex, education, income, and insurance status) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. Because of small numbers of people of color in the study population, we were not powered to investigate the role of race. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (61%), white (94%), and women (59%); two thirds had greater than a high school education. Compared with usual care, DA patients gained knowledge, were more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SDM. These gains were largely consistent across sociodemographic patient groups, with DAs demonstrating similar efficacy when used with vulnerable patients such as the elderly and those with less income and less formal education. Differences in efficacy were found only in knowledge of risk in 1 subgroup, with greater efficacy among those with higher education (35% versus 18%; P =0.02). Conclusions— In this patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, DAs were efficacious across diverse sociodemographic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. To the extent that DAs increase patient knowledge and participation in SDM, they have potential to impact health disparities related to these factors.

Established hospital palliative care consult services (PCCS) have been associated with reduced costs and length of stay, decreased symptom burden, and increased satisfaction with care. Using a retrospective case–control design, we analyzed administrative data of patients seen by PCCS while hospitalized at the Rochester, Minnesota Mayo Clinic hospitals from 2003 to 2008. The PCCS patients were matched to 3:1. A total of 1477 patients seen by the PCCS were matched with 4431 patients not seen. Costs for patients seen and discharged alive were US$35 449 (95% confidence interval [CI] US$34 157-US$36 686) compared to US$37 447 (95% CI US$36 734-US$38 126), without PCCS consultation. Costs for PCCS patients that died during hospitalization were US$54 940 (95% CI US$51 483-US$58 576) and non-PCCS patients were US$79 660 (95% CI US$76 614-US$83 398).

Abstract Purpose: The categorical definition of response assessed via the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors has documented limitations. We sought to identify alternative metrics for tumor response that improve prediction of overall survival. Experimental Design: Individual patient data from three North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials (N0026, n = 117; N9741, n = 1,109; and N9841, n = 332) were used. Continuous metrics of tumor size based on longitudinal tumor measurements were considered in addition to a trichotomized response [TriTR: response (complete or partial) vs. stable disease vs. progression). Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for treatment arm and baseline tumor burden, were used to assess the impact of the metrics on subsequent overall survival, using a landmark analysis approach at 12, 16, and 24 weeks postbaseline. Model discrimination was evaluated by the concordance (c) index. Results: The overall best response rates for the three trials were 26%, 45%, and 25%, respectively. Although nearly all metrics were statistically significantly associated with overall survival at the different landmark time points, the concordance indices (c-index) for the traditional response metrics ranged from 0.59 to 0.65; for the continuous metrics from 0.60 to 0.66; and for the TriTR metrics from 0.64 to 0.69. The c-indices for TriTR at 12 weeks were comparable with those at 16 and 24 weeks. Conclusions: Continuous tumor measurement–based metrics provided no predictive improvement over traditional response–based metrics or TriTR; TriTR had better predictive ability than best TriTR or confirmed response. If confirmed, TriTR represents a promising endpoint for future phase II trials. Clin Cancer Res; 17(20); 6592–9. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Explain the difference in survival prediction between response criteria (WHO) when used as a two-level variable (CR/PR vs. other) and as a three-level variable (CR/PR vs. SD vs. PD).Describe the limited benefit of using actual tumor measurements over traditional criteria (as a three-level variable) in predicting survival in colorectal cancer. This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com Purpose. We explored the prognostic value of actual tumor measurements (TM) versus World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as three-level (responder, stable, and progression) and two-level (responder and non-responder) variables at 12 and 24 weeks as predictors of survival in Intergroup Trial N9741, a phase III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods. All patients with measurable disease (N = 1,188) were included. The percentage changes in TM from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks were calculated. The prognostic values of TM versus WHO criteria (as three- and two-level variables) at 12 and 24 weeks were compared, using Cox models for overall survival (OS) in a landmark analysis, adjusting for baseline tumor size, performance status, and treatment arm. Results. Tumor status at 12 weeks by WHO criteria (three or two levels) or actual TM were all strongly associated with OS. Actual TM provided no meaningful additional benefit compared with the three-level WHO criteria. Tumor status at 24 weeks was also strongly associated with survival, but added no additional prognostic value compared with the 12-week assessment. At 12 weeks, actual TM improved prognostic characterization of patients with WHO status of response, but provided no additional value in patients with stable disease or progression. Conclusions. In N9741, the use of actual TM, or following tumor status beyond 12 weeks, did not improve survival prediction compared with a single three-level response assessment at 12 weeks, suggesting that 12-week tumor status could be an appropriate phase II trial endpoint in metastatic CRC.

ABSTRACTBackground:Although direct medical costs for constipation‐related medical visits are thought to be high, to date there have been no studies examining whether longitudinal resource use is persistently elevated in children with constipation. Our aim was to estimate the incremental direct medical costs and types of health care use associated with constipation from childhood to early adulthood.Methods:A nested case‐control study was conducted to evaluate the incremental costs associated with constipation. The original sample consisted of 5718 children in a population‐based birth cohort who were born during 1976 to 1982 in Rochester, MN. The cases included individuals who presented to medical facilities with constipation. The controls were matched and randomly selected among all noncases in the sample. Direct medical costs for cases and controls were collected from the time subjects were between 5 and 18 years of age or until the subject emigrated from the community.Results:We identified 250 cases with a diagnosis of constipation in the birth cohort. Although the mean inpatient costs for cases were $9994 (95% Confidence interval [CI] 2538–37,201) compared with $2391 (95% CI 923–7452) for controls (P = 0.22) during the time period, the mean outpatient costs for cases were $13,927 (95% CI 11,325–16,525) compared with $3448 (95% CI 3771–4621) for controls (P < 0.001) during the same time period. The mean annual number of emergency department visits for cases was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62–0.70) compared with 0.34 (95% CI 0.32–0.35) for controls (P < 0.0001).Conclusions:Individuals with constipation have higher medical care use. Outpatient costs and emergency department use were significantly greater for individuals with constipation from childhood to early adulthood.