TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluating the effectiveness of a risk prediction model (PERSARC) on improving treatment decisions quality for patients with soft-tissue sarcomas
T2 - the VALUE-PERSARC study
AU - VALUE-PERSARC research group
AU - Kruiswijk, Anouk A.
AU - de Mheen, Perla J.Marang van
AU - Vlug, Lisa A.E.
AU - Engelhardt, Ellen G.
AU - Fiocco, Marta
AU - Haas, Rick L.
AU - Schrage, Yvonne M.
AU - Verhoef, Cornelis
AU - Bemelmans, Marc H.A.
AU - van Ginkel, Robert J.
AU - Bonenkamp, Johannes J.
AU - Witkamp, Arjen J.
AU - van de Sande, Michiel A.J.
AU - van Bodegom-Vos, Leti
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2025.
PY - 2025/9/29
Y1 - 2025/9/29
N2 - BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models (RPM) can potentially improve treatment decisions by providing personalized survival estimates for different treatment options, but their effectiveness is uncertain. The VALUE-PERSARC study evaluated the impact of the PERsonalised SARcoma Care (or PERSARC) RPM on decision-making quality in patients with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS).METHODS: A parallel cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in seven Dutch hospitals, assigned to usual care (control) or care with PERSARC (intervention). PERSARC supported treatment recommendations and informed patients about personalized risks and relevant treatment options. The primary outcome was decision-making quality, measured by patients’ knowledge of treatment risks and benefits and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Secondary outcomes included the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), Shared Decision-Making (SDM-Q9), number of treatment options discussed and treatment choice.RESULTS: This study enrolled 120 patients: 53 patients in the control group and 67 patients in the intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the control and intervention groups in patients’ adequate knowledge (respectively 82% vs. 86%) and decisional conflict (respectively 23.1 [15.5] vs. 18.9 [12.8]). Scores on the CWS (11.7 [3.3] vs. 11.0 [3.5]) and SDM-Q9 (13.3 [4.0] vs. 15.6 [3.3]) were also similar. Treatment choices did not differ significantly between groups. However, clinicians in the intervention group were significantly more likely to discuss multiple treatment options (93% vs. 35%).CONCLUSION: While PERSARC did not significantly improve patients’ knowledge or decisional conflict, it led to more frequent discussion of multiple treatment options by clinicians. This may be an important step towards enhancing shared decision-making in practice. Trail registration: The VALUE-PERSARC study was registered on January 8, 2021 in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL9160) and updated on January 23, 2023 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05741944).TRIAL REGISTRATION: The VALUE-PERSARC study was initially registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL9160) on January 8, 2021, and subsequently updated in ClincicalTrials.gov (NCT05741944) on January 31, 2023.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-025-03166-6.
AB - BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models (RPM) can potentially improve treatment decisions by providing personalized survival estimates for different treatment options, but their effectiveness is uncertain. The VALUE-PERSARC study evaluated the impact of the PERsonalised SARcoma Care (or PERSARC) RPM on decision-making quality in patients with high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS).METHODS: A parallel cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in seven Dutch hospitals, assigned to usual care (control) or care with PERSARC (intervention). PERSARC supported treatment recommendations and informed patients about personalized risks and relevant treatment options. The primary outcome was decision-making quality, measured by patients’ knowledge of treatment risks and benefits and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Secondary outcomes included the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), Shared Decision-Making (SDM-Q9), number of treatment options discussed and treatment choice.RESULTS: This study enrolled 120 patients: 53 patients in the control group and 67 patients in the intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the control and intervention groups in patients’ adequate knowledge (respectively 82% vs. 86%) and decisional conflict (respectively 23.1 [15.5] vs. 18.9 [12.8]). Scores on the CWS (11.7 [3.3] vs. 11.0 [3.5]) and SDM-Q9 (13.3 [4.0] vs. 15.6 [3.3]) were also similar. Treatment choices did not differ significantly between groups. However, clinicians in the intervention group were significantly more likely to discuss multiple treatment options (93% vs. 35%).CONCLUSION: While PERSARC did not significantly improve patients’ knowledge or decisional conflict, it led to more frequent discussion of multiple treatment options by clinicians. This may be an important step towards enhancing shared decision-making in practice. Trail registration: The VALUE-PERSARC study was registered on January 8, 2021 in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL9160) and updated on January 23, 2023 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05741944).TRIAL REGISTRATION: The VALUE-PERSARC study was initially registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL9160) on January 8, 2021, and subsequently updated in ClincicalTrials.gov (NCT05741944) on January 31, 2023.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-025-03166-6.
KW - Clinical consultation soft-tissue sarcoma
KW - Informed decision-making
KW - Risk-prediction model
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105017556587
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/619ebe7a-238c-31a4-9a6c-9feac2c4fcd9/
U2 - 10.1186/s12911-025-03166-6
DO - 10.1186/s12911-025-03166-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 41023919
AN - SCOPUS:105017556587
SN - 1472-6947
VL - 25
JO - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
JF - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
IS - 1
M1 - 345
ER -