Ovarian Cancer Patient-Centered Decision Aid

Not Applicable

Completed

Conditions: Stage III Ovarian Cancer

Interventions: Other: Decision Aid

Registration Number: NCT02259699

Lead Sponsor: University of California, Irvine

Brief Summary: The objective of this study is to develop and test a new decision aid -named Patient Centered Outcome Aid (PCOA)-that will allow patients to assimilate information and identify trade-offs about the impact of IP/IV therapy versus IV-only therapy on their QOL and survival, based on their own preferences and personal clinical characteristics, described in terms that are meaningful to them. To accomplish this, the investigators will 1)develop the PCOA, a patient- and provider-friendly decision aid and 2)test the effectiveness of PCOA through a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

The investigators hypothesize that PCOA will be significantly better than usual care, resulting in patients reporting more satisfaction with their treatment decision, less decision regret, better quality of life, and more satisfaction with their care compared with similar patients not having access to PCOA. If these hypotheses are substantiated, patients and providers will have an improved model for communication and decision making, leading to better patient outcomes.

Detailed Description: Ovarian cancer is typically diagnosed at an advanced stage and carries the highest fatality-to-case ratio of all gynecologic malignancies diagnosed in the United States. Arguably the most effective treatment regimen to date is provided through intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy delivery, together with intravenous (IV) chemotherapy, which in the most recent phase III randomized trial conferred the longest median survival (65.6 months) ever reported in advanced ovarian cancer, compared to 49.7 months in the IV-only treatment arm. However, during active treatment, patients randomized to the IP therapy group reported significantly worse quality of life (QOL), and more treatment-related toxicities. In short, women are less likely to die if they receive an IP component to their chemotherapy, a finding that was underscored by an NCI Clinical Alert. However, there may be greater toxicity with IP treatment. The tradeoff between short-term reduced QOL and longer survival is difficult for patients to understand and then incorporate meaningfully into their decision-making process. In fact, for reasons that are not entirely clear, many patients are not offered IP therapy. Patient-centered care requires that they be given the opportunity to participate in treatment decision-making.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: Female

Target Recruitment: 124

Inclusion Criteria

RCT participants will include stage III optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer patients from urban and rural regions of the country, who will be randomized to either our patient-centered decision-aid or the usual care control arm

Exclusion Criteria

By the nature of the neoplasm under study, gender specific (ovarian cancer), only female patients will be included
Patient enrollment will include women from all English speaking ethnic groups

-> the age of 21
All minority ovarian cancer survivors will be eligible
Women under age 21 will not be included in this study because it is not common to be diagnosed with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in females under age 21

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Decision Aid (PCOA)	Decision Aid	PCOA will be designed to accomplish 2 objectives: 1) it will educate patients and allow them to assimilate information about the differences in outcomes and survival between IP and IV therapies; and 2) it will help patients make the difficult trade-offs between these two treatment options.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Satisfaction With Decision	at treatment initiation (T1), treatment completion (T3), and 9 months post enrollment (T4)	Satisfaction with Decision scale (SWD) is a 6-item scale measuring satisfaction with health care decisions, developed and validated in the context of women making decisions about hormone replacement therapy, and subsequently validated in adults with depression making decisions about treatment. The scale has good internal consistency reliability (alpha = 0.85), evidence of construct validity, relevance to designing and assessing patient-centered decision support interventions, and is sensitive to changes in information in trials of decision aids. The scale uses a 1-5 rating (1=strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Scores from these 6 items were linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale. A higher score reflects a higher level of satisfaction with the decision.
Decisional Regret	At treatment completion (T3) and 9 months post enrollment (T4)	The Decision Regret Scale is a 5-item scale which is a reliable and valid indicator of health care decision regret at a given point in time, with excellent psychometric properties. In this study, the question stem will ask "about the decision you made about selecting IP/IV treatment." Total scores were linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale. The lowest possible score, 0, means no regret. The highest possible score, 100, means high regret. This outcome will be measured from T2 - T4, but is not appropriate to ask at the time of the T1 assessment, which is just after the treatment decision has been made, but prior to treatment delivery. Use of this measure will allow us to evaluate whether the PCOA, compared to usual care, helps to reduce regret during and after cancer treatment.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Satisfaction With Care (EORTC) Overall Quality Rating	at treatment completion (T3) and 9 months post enrollment (T4)	Satisfaction with Care was measured using the EORTC IN-PATSAT32, which assessed cancer patients' appraisal of doctors and nurses, as well as aspects of care organization and services. The measure also discriminated between cancer patients with different care expectations. Scores from these 32 items were linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale. A higher score reflects a higher level of satisfaction. This measure has excellent internal consistency and convergent validity, although some scales are highly correlated. Test-retest reliability is acceptable.
Cancer Therapy Satisfaction	at treatment completion (T3) and 9 months post enrollment (T4)	While the EORTC IN-PATSAT32, assessed cancer patients' appraisal of doctors, nurses, and services, the Satisfaction with Cancer Treatment Questionnaire assessed patients' satisfaction specifically with their most recent therapy (i.e. IV or pills). The scale contained 21 items assessing seven domains. Total scores were linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale. A higher score reflects a higher level of satisfaction with their most recent therapy. This has been validated on adults with many cancer types and treatments.
Shared Decision Making	at treatment initiation (T1)	The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was developed and psychometrically tested for use in clinical encounters. It has strong reliability and validity, and use is advocated in studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at implementing shared decision-making. The question stem indicated the medical decision (IP/IV) with 6 levels of agreement from 'completely disagree to completely agree' (e.g., "My doctor and I selected a treatment option together"). Total scores were linearly transformed to range from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates the lowest possible level of SDM and 100 indicates the highest extent of SDM. SDM was assessed at T1 only, since this was the most proximal in time to when the decision was made.