Toward ethically responsible choice architecture in prostate cancer treatment decision‐making
J. Blumenthal-Barby,Denise Lee,R. Volk
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21283
2015-07-01
Abstract:Medicine operates under an assumption that “patients will naturally gather evidence about the risks and benefits of each medical choice, apply their values to that evidence, and reach a considered decision.” In other words, that patients will generally make “autonomous” decisions, meaning decisions that are 1) intentional rather than habitual, impulsive, accidental, or forced; 2) involve substantial understanding of the nature of the decision, the foreseeable consequences, and possible outcomes; and 3) are not subject to controlling influences. Although this assumption has been challenged in other areas of medical decision-making, herein we want to challenge it within the context of treatment decision-making regarding localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Many men will face this decision given that there are 220,800 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed each year in the United States. Yet there is alarming evidence to indicate that patients may not be properly informed about their options, particularly expectant management options such as watchful waiting or active surveillance. In addition, there is further evidence that men may be especially prone to using intuition, impulse, and “heuristics” or mental shortcuts in their decision-making, all of which threaten autonomous decision-making. Two recent articles in this journal have highlighted the complexities of treatment decision-making in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. As Filson et al note in their article, men with a new diagnosis of localized prostate cancer face an array of treatment options, each associated with high disease-specific survival given the slow-growing nature of many prostate cancers. Radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy are the most commonly used treatments for localized prostate cancer, and each has associated treatment-related complications that impact men’s quality of life. Increasingly, active surveillance is being recommended by clinical guidelines as a treatment option for men with low-risk disease. Unlike watchful waiting, active surveillance involves careful monitoring of the disease with an expectation of curative treatment if there is progression. Although active surveillance has disadvantages of periodic testing and associated anxiety, its major advantage is the preservation of current health and the avoidance of treatment-related complications, including impotence and urinary and rectal incontinence. Despite the appropriateness of expectant management strategies such as active surveillance for patients with early-stage prostate cancer, as highlighted by Filson et al in their article, men who might benefit from expectant management are not routinely offered the option. Other studies have reported similar findings. One report found that only 10 of 25 patients with early-stage prostate cancer were offered a treatment choice, whereas another found that of 21 men (19 of whom chose surgery or radiation), few remembered active surveillance being presented as a viable option and another study found that health professionals were less likely to discuss active surveillance for localized prostate cancer with Hispanic patients compared with white patients. Furthermore, studies have found biases and heuristics at work in patients’ decision-making (all favoring surgery or radiation) such as the “commission bias” (doing something is better than “doing nothing” even if the “something” causes more harm) and the “availability bias” (reliance on anecdotal stories), in addition to fear, heavy reliance on physician recommendation, reported pressure from family, and lack of awareness that treatment does not guarantee improved survival. These findings regarding prostate cancer decisionmaking are ethically significant given that they imply that prostate cancer decision-makers may not be as autonomous as we would assume. They also raise concerns about patient well-being given the risk of harm associated with surgery and radiation. An 8-year follow-up study of 272 men showed that men who underwent surgery consistently reported more urinary leakage and impaired erection and libido. Findings from the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) showed higher rates of urinary leakage and erectile dysfunction among men