Factors Guiding Clinical Decision‐Making in Genitourinary Oncology

Abstract

IntroductionClinical decision‐making in oncology is a complex process, with the primary goal of identifying the most effective treatment tailored to individual cancer patients. Many factors influence the treatment decision: disease‐ and patient‐specific criteria, the increasingly complex treatment landscape, market authorization and drug availability, financial aspects, and personal treatment expertise. In the domain of genitourinary cancers, particularly prostate cancer, decision‐making is challenging. Despite the prevalence of this malignancy, there are few in‐depth explorations of these factors within real‐world scenarios. Understanding and refining this intricate decision‐making process is essential for future successful clinical decisions and the integration of computerized decision support into clinicians' workflows.AimThe objective of this study is to improve the current knowledge base and evidence of the factors that influence treatment decision‐making for patients with genitourinary cancers.MethodsAssessment of how routine treatment decisions are made for genitourinary cancers was performed by a mixed‐methods study, encompassing field observations and focus group discussions.ResultsIn total, we identified 59 factors that influence clinical decision‐making in oncology, specifically for genitourinary and prostate cancer. Of these, 23 criteria can be classified as decision‐maker‐related criteria encompassing personal, cognitive, and emotional attributes and factors of both, healthcare professionals and patients. Moreover, 20 decision‐specific criteria have been identified that refer to clinical and disease‐related factors, followed by 16 contextual decision factors that describe the relevant criteria introduced by the specific circumstances and environment in which the treatment decision is made.ConclusionBy presenting an exhaustive set of decision factors and providing specific examples for genitourinary cancers, this observational study establishes a possible framework for a better understanding of decision‐making. Moreover, we specify and expand the set of decision factors, while emphasizing the importance of cognitive, emotional, and human factors, as well as the quality and accessibility of decision‐relevant information.