What Matters Most: Choosing the Right Breast Cancer Surgery for You

Comparative Effectiveness of Encounter Decision Aids for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Socioeconomic Strata

What Matters Most is a study that aims to determine how best to help women of lower socioeconomic status make high-quality decisions about early stage breast cancer treatments. What Matters Most will be comparing two decision aids used in the clinic visit to usual care (what normally happens in the clinic). The first decision aid (Option Grid) presents evidence-based information about lumpectomy and mastectomy in a tabular format using text only. The second decision aid (Picture Option Grid) presents evidence-based information about lumpectomy and mastectomy using pictures, pictographs and simplified text. What Matters Most aims to show that the interventions can reduce disparities in decision-making and treatment choice between women of high and low SES.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Breast Cancer
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Option Grid; Other: Picture Option Grid

Detailed Description

Background and Significance

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women. Despite improvements in survival, women of low socioeconomic status (SES) diagnosed with early stage breast cancer:

• Continue to experience poorer doctor-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery and decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES;
• Often play a passive role in decision making;
• Are less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (BCS);
• Are less likely to receive optimal care.

Those differences are disparities that predominantly affect women of low SES with early stage breast cancer, irrespective of race or ethnicity. For early stage breast cancer, low SES is a stronger predictor of poorer outcomes, treatment received and death, than race or ethnicity. The investigators define low SES as a lower income, lower educational attainment, and uninsured or state-insured status

Although BCS is the recommended treatment for early stage breast cancer (stages I to IIIA), research confirms equivalent survival between mastectomy and BCS. Both options are offered yet have distinct harms and benefits, valued differently by patients. The patient and stakeholder partners involved in this study have emphasized the critical importance of supporting women in making high quality breast cancer surgery decisions (good knowledge and alignment between the patient's choice, values and priorities) irrespective of SES and health literacy. Yet, research shows that women of low SES are not usually involved in an informed, patient-centered dialogue about surgery choice. There is no evidence that women of low SES have distinct preferences that explain a lower uptake of BCS and limited engagement in decision making. Further, communication strategies are not typically adapted to women of low SES and low health literacy. Most decision aids for breast cancer have been designed for highly literate audiences, with poor accessibility and readability. Simpler, shorter decision aids delivered in the clinical encounter (encounter decision aids) may be more beneficial to underserved patients, and could reduce disparities. It is critical to determine how to effectively support women of low SES in making informed breast cancer surgery choices.

Study Aims

First, the investigators will assess the comparative effectiveness of two effective encounter decision aids (Option Grid and Picture Option Grid) against usual care on decision quality (primary outcome), shared decision making, treatment choice and other secondary outcomes across socioeconomic strata (Aim 1). Second, the investigators aim to explore the effect of the Picture Option Grid on disparities in decision making (decision quality, knowledge, and shared decision making), treatment choice, as well as mediation and moderation effects (Aim 2). Third, in order to maximize the implementation potential, the investigators will explore strategies that promote the encounter decision aids' sustained use and dissemination using a theoretical implementation model (Aim 3).

Study Description

The investigators will conduct a three-arm, multi-site randomized controlled superiority trial with stratification by SES (Aims 1 and 2) and randomization at the clinician level. One thousand, one hundred patients (half of higher SES and half of lower SES) will be recruited from five large cancer centers. In preparation for the trial (Year 01), the investigators will conduct semi-structured interviews with women of low SES who have completed treatment for early stage breast cancer to adapt the "What Matters Most to You" subscale of the Decision Quality Instrument (DQI) for women of low SES. Lastly, the investigators will use interviews, field-notes, and observations to explore strategies that promote the interventions' sustained use and dissemination using the Normalization Process Theory (Aim 3). Community-Based Participatory Research will be used throughout the trial (with continuous patient and stakeholder involvement).

Women 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer (I to IIIA) from both higher and lower SES will be included in the trial, provided they have a basic command of English, Spanish, or Mandarin. About 367 patients will be recruited per arm.

Both interventions have been developed, tested, and shown to be effective. The Option Grid (intervention 1) is a one-page evidence-based summary of available options presented in a tabular format, listing the trade-offs that patients normally consider when making breast cancer surgery decisions. The Picture Option Grid (intervention 2) uses the same evidence and tabular layout, but it is tailored to women of lower SES and low health literacy and includes simple text and images. Because decision aids are not routinely available in real world settings, usual care is a coherent and legitimate comparator. It will include the provision of usual information resources about breast cancer but will exclude the provision of other decision aids.

Secondary outcome measures will include treatment choice, the validated 3-item CollaboRATE measure of shared decision-making (SDM), Chew's validated one-item health literacy screening question, PROMIS, an 8-item validated anxiety short form, EQ-5D-5L, a validated, standardized 6-item quality of life measure, and four items from COST, a validated financial toxicity measure. Participants will also be asked to estimate their out-of-pocket expenses over the past month. All measures will be available in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. Observer OPTION5 will be used to rate the level of shared decision making in the clinical encounter.

A regression framework (logistic regression, linear regression, mixed effect regression models, generalized estimating equations) and mediation analyses will be used in the analysis. The investigators will also use multiple informants analysis to measure and examine SES and multiple imputation to manage missing data. Heterogeneity of treatment effects analyses for SES, age, ethnicity, race, literacy, language, and study site will be performed. The investigators will also use the recordings of surgical consultations to analyze the conversations about costs and treatment recommendations made by providers.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 571
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• United States
  • Missouri
    • Saint Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110
      • Washington University in St. Louis
  • New Hampshire
    • Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States, 03756
      • Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
  • New York
    • Bronx, New York, United States, 10467
      • Montefiore Medical Center
    • New York, New York, United States, 10016
      • NYU Langone Medical Center
    • New York, New York, United States, 10016
      • Bellevue Hospital Center

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Assigned female at birth;
• 18 years and older;
• Confirmed diagnosis (via biopsy) of early stage breast cancer (stages I-IIIA);
• Eligible for both breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy based on medical records and clinician's opinion before surgery;
• Spoken English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Transgender men and women;
• Women who have undergone prophylactic mastectomy;
• Women with visual impairment;
• Women with a diagnosis of severe mental illness or severe dementia;
• Women with inflammatory breast carcinoma.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

3

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Arm 1: Option Grid; Patients in this arm will receive the Option Grid for breast cancer surgery, an encounter decision aid, when they first meet with the breast surgeon to discuss their surgical options for breast cancer treatment.	Other: Option Grid; The Option Grid(TM) encounter decision aid for early stage breast cancer surgery is a one-page, evidence-based summary of available options presented in a tabular format.; Other Names: Option Grid for Breast Cancer Surgery; Breast cancer: surgical options
Experimental: Arm 2: Picture Option Grid; Patients in this arm will receive the Picture Option Grid for breast cancer surgery, an encounter decision aid, when they first meet with the breast surgeon to discuss their surgical options for breast cancer treatment.	Other: Picture Option Grid; The Picture Option Grid was derived from the Option Grid for early stage breast cancer. It uses the same evidence and integrates images and simpler text, thus exploiting pictorial superiority. The Picture Option Grid has been specifically designed for women of lower SES and low health literacy.; Other Names: Early-stage breast cancer: What's right for me?
No Intervention: Arm 3: Usual Care; In the usual care arm, surgeons provided their standard information about breast cancer

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in Decision Quality: Knowledge Subscale	Change in decision quality, measured using the validated 16-item Decision Quality Worksheet for Breast Cancer Surgery. Decision quality is measured through three constructs: knowledge, decision process, and concordance. Knowledge is five questions that results in a score from 0 to 5 with higher numbers indicating higher knowledge. Decision process is a measure how much shared decision making process occurred, based on patient-report. It is a seven-item scale with higher numbers indicating higher shared decision process. For the concordance score, patients rated their goals and concerns on an 11-point importance scale from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (extremely important). They also indicated which surgery they intended to have at T2. A concordance summary score (0-100%) indicated the percentage of patients who received a treatment that matched their stated preference.	Immediately before the index surgical consultation visit, immediately after the index surgical consultation visit and at one week post-surgery
Change in Decision Quality: Decison Process Subscale	Change in decision quality, measured using the validated 16-item Decision Quality Worksheet for Breast Cancer Surgery. Decision quality is measured through three constructs: knowledge, decision process, and concordance. Knowledge is five questions that results in a score from 0 to 5 with higher numbers indicating higher knowledge. Decision process is a measure how much shared decision making process occurred, based on patient-report. It is a seven-item scale from 0 to 7 with higher numbers indicating higher shared decision process. For the concordance score, patients rated their goals and concerns on an 11-point importance scale from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (extremely important). They also indicated which surgery they intended to have at T2. A concordance score indicated the percentage of patients who received a treatment that matched their stated preference.	Immediately after the index surgical consultation visit and at one week post-surgery
Change in Decision Quality: Concordance Subscale	Change in decision quality, measured using the validated 16-item Decision Quality Worksheet for Breast Cancer Surgery. Decision quality is measured through three constructs: knowledge, decision process, and concordance. Knowledge is five questions that results in a score from 0 to 5 with higher numbers indicating higher knowledge. Decision process is a measure how much shared decision making process occurred, based on patient-report. It is a seven-item scale with higher numbers indicating higher shared decision process. For the concordance score, patients rated their goals and concerns on an 11-point importance scale from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (extremely important). They also indicated which surgery they intended to have at T2. A concordance summary score (0-100%) indicated the percentage of patients who received a treatment that matched their stated preference at T2 (lumpectomy vs mastectomy).	Immediately after the index surgical consultation visit and at one week post-surgery

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Number of Participants Who Chose Lumpectomy or Mastectomy as Their Treatment Choice	Treatment choice, or which surgical or treatment option the patient chose, mastectomy or lumpectomy (breast conserving surgery)	1 week post-surgery
Change in Quality of Life	Quality of life reported by the patient measured using the validated 6-item EQ-5D-5L measure. We used the available resources from EuroQol to convert EQ-5D-5L states into an index value, using the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk value sets. Index values ranged from full health (1) and to no health (-0.109), according to the US crosswalk value set.	Immediately before the index surgical consultation visit and at 12 weeks post-surgery
Anxiety	Patient-reported anxiety, measured using the validated 8-item PROMIS anxiety short form. Each question was coded from one to five. Total scores were obtained by scoring the raw score of each item answered. The lowest possible raw score was 8; the highest possible raw score was 40 with higher numbers indicating higher anxiety.	Immediately before the index surgical consultation visit, immediately after the index surgical consultation visit, at 1 week post-surgery, and at 12 weeks post-surgery
Shared Decision-making (Self-reported)	Self-reported shared decision-making about breast cancer surgical options measured using the validated 3-item CollaboRATE measure. Each item was rated on a scale from 0 to 9 with a possible score range from 0 to 27. We dichotomized this measure using the top score approach, grouping participants scoring 9 on all three items versus all others.	Immediately after the index surgical consultation visit
Shared Decision-making (Observed)	Shared decision-making observed during the surgical consultation, measured using the validated observer-rated OPTION5. The five items on the measure ask raters to score the consultation on how much the clinician: 1) confirms that alternatives exist, 2) reassures that they will support the patient to become informed, 3) gives information or checks understanding about the options, 4) makes an effort to elicit the patient's preferences, and 5) integrates the patient's elicited preferences. Each of the five items is scored from zero to four for a summary score ranging from zero to 20 and a scaled score ranging from zero to 100. Higher numbers indicate more shared decision making was observed.	During the index surgical consultation visit
Decision Regret	Patient-reported feelings of decision regret, measured using the validated 5-item decision regret scale. Items 2 and 4 were reverse coded so a higher number indicated more regret. Scores were then converted to a 0-100 scale by subtracting 1 from each item then multiply by 25. To obtain a final score, the items were summed and averaged. A score of 0 meant no regret and a score of 100 meant high regret.	At 1 week post-surgery, 12 weeks post-surgery, and 1 year post-surgery
Integration of Health Care Delivery	Patient-reported measure of integration of healthcare delivery, measured using IntegRATE, a 4-item scale. IntegRATE sum scores are determined by summing each participant's scores across the 4 items (range 0-12). A higher score indicates higher integration.	Immediately before the index surgical consultation visit and at 12 weeks post-surgery
Exploration of Strategies That Promote the Interventions' Sustained Use and Dissemination	Semi-structured interviews with clinic stakeholders and patients 12 weeks post-surgery, field notes, and clinic observations to explore strategies that promote the interventions' sustained use and dissemination	12 weeks post-surgery (patients) or after trial participation ended (surgeons)

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
• Collaborators: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Washington University School of Medicine; NYU Langone Health; Montefiore Medical Center
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Marie-Ann Durand, MSc, PhD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. Epub 2011 Apr 9.
• Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, Bradley KA, Nugent SM, Baines AD, Vanryn M. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 May;23(5):561-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5. Epub 2008 Mar 12.
• Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, Grande SW, Ozanne EM, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jan 3;16(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3085. Erratum In: J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e32. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e32.
• Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM. Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Oct;93(1):102-7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009. Epub 2013 Jun 12.
• Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):281-92. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256005.
• Pilkonis PA, Choi SW, Reise SP, Stover AM, Riley WT, Cella D; PROMIS Cooperative Group. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(R)): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment. 2011 Sep;18(3):263-83. doi: 10.1177/1073191111411667. Epub 2011 Jun 21.
• Lee CN, Wetschler MH, Chang Y, Belkora JK, Moy B, Partridge A, Sepucha KR. Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer chemotherapy. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 Aug 20;14:73. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-14-73.
• Barr PJ, O'Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, Gionfriddo MR, Montori V, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Aug;98(8):970-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
• Elwyn G, Thompson R, John R, Grande SW. Developing IntegRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of integration in health care delivery. Int J Integr Care. 2015 Mar 27;15:e008. doi: 10.5334/ijic.1597. eCollection 2015 Jan-Mar.
• Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care. 2007 Mar;45(3):259-63. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81.
• Sepucha KR, Belkora JK, Chang Y, Cosenza C, Levin CA, Moy B, Partridge A, Lee CN. Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Jun 8;12:51. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-51.
• Schubbe D, Yen RW, Saunders CH, Elwyn G, Forcino RC, O'Malley AJ, Politi MC, Margenthaler J, Volk RJ, Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Percac-Lima S, Bradley A, Goodwin C, van den Muijsenbergh M, Aarts JWM, Scalia P, Durand MA. Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices. Implement Sci. 2021 May 10;16(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01115-1.
• Durand MA, Yen RW, O'Malley AJ, Schubbe D, Politi MC, Saunders CH, Dhage S, Rosenkranz K, Margenthaler J, Tosteson ANA, Crayton E, Jackson S, Bradley A, Walling L, Marx CM, Volk RJ, Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Percac-Lima S, Bergin E, Goodwin C, Miller C, Harris C, Barth RJ Jr, Aft R, Feldman S, Cyr AE, Angeles CV, Jiang S, Elwyn G. What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata. Cancer. 2021 Feb 1;127(3):422-436. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33248. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
• Durand MA, Yen RW, O'Malley AJ, Politi MC, Dhage S, Rosenkranz K, Weichman K, Margenthaler J, Tosteson ANA, Crayton E, Jackson S, Bradley A, Volk RJ, Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Percac-Lima S, Song J, Acosta J, Mir N, Elwyn G. What matters most: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery encounter decision aids across socioeconomic strata. BMC Public Health. 2018 Feb 13;18(1):241. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5109-2.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): September 18, 2017
• Primary Completion (Actual): May 31, 2019
• Study Completion (Actual): May 31, 2019

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: April 25, 2017
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 27, 2017
• First Posted (Actual): May 2, 2017

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): January 5, 2021
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: December 8, 2020
• Last Verified: December 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: shared decision making; disparities; socioeconomic status; decision quality; encounter decision aids
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Skin Diseases; Neoplasms; Neoplasms by Site; Breast Diseases; Breast Neoplasms
• Other Study ID Numbers: D17063

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No