Shared Decision Making in Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend that patients and professionals make shared decisions between surgery and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) when treating early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Variation by center suggests treatment decisions may be disproportionately influenced by clinician judgment and treatment availability rather than by patient preference. This systematic review critically evaluates studies of patient and clinician preferences for treatment of early-stage NSCLC.

Methods: Primary empirical research up to April 30, 2020, was identified from searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. Data extracted included study characteristics and methods, preferences for NSCLC treatment, and involvement in decision making and risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using descriptive data and narrative synthesis.

Results: Included in the review were 23 studies, of which 18 measured patient preferences, 4 clinician preferences, and 1 both clinician and patient preferences. Patients and clinicians were both most likely to prefer a collaborative role in treatment decisions. Most patients did not recall there being a choice between surgery or SABR options and thus experienced minimal decisional conflict.

Conclusions: For professionals to support patients in making informed, value-based decisions about NSCLC treatments, better quality evidence is needed of the clinical and quality of life trade-offs for both surgery and SABR.