Physician uncertainty aversion impacts medical decision making for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia: results of a national survey

Pierre Bories, Sébastien Lamy, Célestine Simand, Sarah Bertoli, Cyrille Delpierre, Sandra Malak, Luc Fornecker, Stéphane Moreau, Christian Récher, Antoine Nebout, Pierre Bories, Sébastien Lamy, Célestine Simand, Sarah Bertoli, Cyrille Delpierre, Sandra Malak, Luc Fornecker, Stéphane Moreau, Christian Récher, Antoine Nebout

Abstract

Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia can be treated with intensive chemotherapy, low-intensity therapy such as low-dose aracytine or hypomethylating agents, or best supportive care. The choice between these treatments is a function of many patient-related and disease-related factors. We investigated how physicians' behavioral characteristics affect medical decision-making between intensive and non-intensive therapy in this setting. A nationwide cross-sectional online survey of hematologists collected data on medical decision-making for 6 clinical vignettes involving older acute myeloid leukemia patients that were representative of routine practice. Questionnaires elicited physicians' demographic and occupational characteristics along with their individual behavioral characteristics according to a decision theory framework. From the pattern of responses to the vignettes, a K-means clustering algorithm was used to distinguish those who were likely to prescribe more intensive therapy and those who were likely to prescribe less intensive or no therapy. Multivariate analyses were used to identify physician's characteristics predictive of medical decision-making. We obtained 230 assessable answers, which represented an adjusted response rate of 45.4%. A multivariate model (n=210) revealed that physicians averse to uncertainty recommend significantly more intensive chemotherapy: Odds Ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)]: 1.15 [1.01;1.30]; P=0.039. Male physicians who do not conform to the expected utility model (assumed as economically irrational) recommend more intensive chemotherapy [OR (95% CI) = 3.45 (1.34; 8.85); P=0.01]. Patient volume per physician also correlated with therapy intensity [OR (95% CI)=0.98 (0.96; 0.99); P=0.032]. The physicians' medical decision-making was not affected by their age, years of experience, or hospital facility. The significant association between medical decision and individual behavioral characteristics of the physician identifies a novel non-biological factor that may affect acute myeloid leukemia patients' outcomes and explain variations in clinical practice. It should also encourage the use of validated predictive models and the description of novel bio-markers to best select patients for intensive chemotherapy or low-intensity therapy.

Copyright© 2018 Ferrata Storti Foundation.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Behavioral tasks. (A) Physician’s individual risk aversion evaluation. The closer the scroll bar is to 500 euros, the more risk-seeking the behavior; the lower the score bar, the greater the aversion to risk. E.g. if the scroll bar is at 200 euros, the person prefers a 50% chance of winning 500 euros to a 100% chance of winning 190 euros. If the scroll bar is at 300 Euros, the person prefers a 50% chance of winning 500 euros to a 100% chance of winning 290 euros. The latter is riskier since you are giving up more certain money (290 vs. 190) for a chance to win the same amount (500 euros). (B) Physician’s individual uncertainty aversion evaluation. The same line of reasoning applies to the uncertainty aversion evaluation except that for option A, the probability of gain is unknown. The closer the scroll bar is to 500 euros the more uncertainty-seeking the behavior; the lower the scroll bar, the greater the aversion to uncertainty. (C) Classic binary choices from Kahneman and Tversky. Choice patterns AC and BD conform to the expected utility theory. Choice patterns AD and BC do not conform to expected utility theory (for further details see Online Supplementary Appendix, Section 2). (D) Self-evaluation of the willingness to take risk in four different domains.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Medical decision-making among the 6 clinical vignettes. Proportion of physicians choosing intensive chemotherapy, low-intensity therapy or best supportive care for each of the 6 clinical vignettes.

References

    1. Döhner H, Estey E, Grimwade D, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2017;129(4):424–447.
    1. Bories P, Bertoli S, Bérard E, et al. Intensive chemotherapy, azacitidine, or supportive care in older acute myeloid leukemia patients: an analysis from a regional healthcare network. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(12):E244–252.
    1. Klepin HD, Rao AV, Pardee TS. Acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes in older adults. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(24):2541–2552.
    1. Tsai C-H, Hou H-A, Tang J-L, et al. Genetic alterations and their clinical implications in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. 2016;30(7):1485–1492.
    1. Krug U, Röllig C, Koschmieder A, et al. Complete remission and early death after intensive chemotherapy in patients aged 60 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia: a web-based application for prediction of outcomes. Lancet. 2010;376(9757):2000–2008.
    1. Klepin HD, Geiger AM, Tooze JA, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival for older adults receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2013;121(21):4287–4294.
    1. Loberiza FR, Cannon AC, Cannon AJ, Bierman PJ. Insights on practice variations in the management of lymphoma and leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(11):2449–2456.
    1. Dombret H, Seymour JF, Butrym A, et al. International phase 3 study of azacitidine vs conventional care regimens in older patients with newly diagnosed AML with >30% blasts. Blood. 2015;126(3):291–299.
    1. Kantarjian HM, Thomas XG, Dmoszynska A, et al. Multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of decitabine versus patient choice, with physician advice, of either supportive care or low-dose cytarabine for the treatment of older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2670–2677.
    1. Burnett AK, Milligan D, Goldstone A, et al. The impact of dose escalation and resistance modulation in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia and high risk myelodysplastic syndrome: the results of the LRF AML14 trial. Br J Haematol. 2009;145(3):318–332.
    1. Burnett AK, Milligan D, Prentice AG, et al. A comparison of low-dose cytarabine and hydroxyurea with or without all-trans retinoic acid for acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome in patients not considered fit for intensive treatment. Cancer. 2007;109(6):1114–1124.
    1. Lee SJ, Joffe S, Artz AS, et al. Individual physician practice variation in hematopoietic cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2162–2170.
    1. Lee SJ, Astigarraga CC, Eapen M, et al. Variation in supportive care practices in hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14(11):1231–1238.
    1. Dhawale T, Steuten LM, Deeg HJ. Uncertainty of Physicians and Patients in Medical Decision Making. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017;23(6):865–869.
    1. Hunter DJ. Uncertainty in the Era of Precision Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):711–713.
    1. Simpkin AL, Schwartzstein RM. Tolerating uncertainty - the next medical revolution? N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(18):1713–1715.
    1. Michel-Lepage A, Ventelou B, Nebout A, Verger P, Pulcini C. Cross-sectional survey: risk-averse French GPs use more rapid-antigen diagnostic tests in tonsillitis in children. BMJ Open. 2013;3(10):e003540.
    1. Massin S, Ventelou B, Nebout A, Verger P, Pulcini C. Cross-sectional survey: risk-averse French general practitioners are more favorable toward influenza vaccination. Vaccine. 2015;33(5):610–614.
    1. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 2nd Ed. Princeton University Press; 1947.
    1. Starmer C. Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. J Econ Lit. 2000;38(2):332–382.
    1. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263–291.
    1. Allais M. Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. Econometrica. 1953;21(4):503–546.
    1. Wakker PP. Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2010.
    1. Lipitz-Snyderman A, Sima CS, Atoria CL, et al. Physician-Driven Variation in Nonrecommended Services Among Older Adults Diagnosed With Cancer. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(10):1541–1548.
    1. Sikkens JJ, van Agtmael MA, Peters EJG, et al. Behavioral Approach to Appropriate Antimicrobial Prescribing in Hospitals: The Dutch Unique Method for Antimicrobial Stewardship (DUMAS) Participatory Intervention Study. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(8):1130–1138.
    1. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283(13):1715–1722.
    1. Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2011;9(3):522–550.
    1. Selim SZ, Ismail MA. K-means-type algorithms: a generalized convergence theorem and characterization of local optimality. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1984;6(1):81–87.
    1. Kristinsson SY, Derolf AR, Edgren G, Dickman PW, Björkholm M. Socioeconomic differences in patient survival are increasing for acute myeloid leukemia and multiple myeloma in sweden. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2073–2080.
    1. Borate UM, Mineishi S, Costa LJ. Nonbiological factors affecting survival in younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer. 2015;121(21):3877–3884.
    1. Luo R, Giordano SH, Zhang DD, Freeman J, Goodwin JS. The role of the surgeon in whether patients with lymph node-positive colon cancer see a medical oncologist. Cancer. 2007;109(5):975–982.
    1. Giri S, Pathak R, Aryal MR, Karmacharya P, Bhatt VR, Martin MG. Impact of hospital volume on outcomes of patients undergoing chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia: a matched cohort study. Blood. 2015;125(21):3359–3360.
    1. Go RS, Bartley AC, Crowson CS, et al. Association Between Treatment Facility Volume and Mortality of Patients With Multiple Myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(6):598–604.
    1. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE. Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(11):2327–2340.
    1. Verma AA, Razak F, Detsky AS. Understanding choice: why physicians should learn prospect theory. JAMA. 2014;311(6):571–572.
    1. Han PKJ, Reeve BB, Moser RP, Klein WMP. Aversion to ambiguity regarding medical tests and treatments: measurement, prevalence, and relationship to sociodemographic factors. J Health Commun. 2009;14(6): 556–572.
    1. Nebout A, Dubois D. When Allais meets Ulysses: Dynamic axioms and the common ratio effect. J Risk Uncertain. 2014;48(1):19–49.
    1. Trautmann ST, van de Kuilen G. Ambiguity Attitudes. In: Keren G., Wu G., editors. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015. p.89–116.
    1. Nebout A, Cavillon M, Ventelou B. Comparing GPs’ risk attitudes for their own health and for their patients’ : a troubling discrepancy? BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):283.
    1. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ. Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence. In: Plott C., Smith V., Editors. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. Elsevier; 2008. p. 1061–1073.
    1. Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender Differences in Preferences. J Econ Lit. 2009;47(2):448–474.
    1. Gattellari M, Voigt KJ, Butow PN, Tattersall MHN. When the treatment goal is not cure: are cancer patients equipped to make informed decisions? J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):503–513.
    1. Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(2):354–366.
    1. Dinmohamed AG, Visser O, van Norden Y, et al. Treatment, trial participation and survival in adult acute myeloid leukemia: a population-based study in the Netherlands, 1989-2012. Leukemia. 2016;30(1):24–31.
    1. Medeiros BC, Fathi AT, DiNardo CD, Pollyea DA, Chan SM, Swords R. Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations in myeloid malignancies. Leukemia. 2017;31(2):272–281.
    1. Welch JS, Petti AA, Miller CA, et al. TP53 and Decitabine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(21): 2023–2036.
    1. Gerstung M, Papaemmanuil E, Martincorena I, et al. Precision oncology for acute myeloid leukemia using a knowledge bank approach. Nat Genet. 2017;49(3):332–340.
    1. Sorror ML, Storer BE, Fathi AT, et al. Development and Validation of a Novel Acute Myeloid Leukemia-Composite Model to Estimate Risks of Mortality. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1675–1682.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi