EL CENTRO: Engaging Latinos in the Center of Cancer Treatment Options

EL CENTRO: Engaging Latinos in the Center of Cancer Treatment Options - RCT of Usual Chemotherapy Educational Tools Versus Investigational Chemotherapy Educational Tools

The objective of this study is to improve the chemotherapy decision making process for Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal cancers. In this study Latinos who are considering 1st line chemotherapy for newly diagnosed advanced colorectal or pancreatic cancer will be randomized to usual care or to usual care supplemented by a Spanish/English language multimedia chemotherapy educational intervention. Primary informal caregivers will also be invited to participate. This research study is evaluating if a new set of educational materials will improve the treatment decision-making process for Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal cancers. This research study will involve about 154 patients and 154 caregivers.

There is growing evidence of racial/ethnic disparities in the quality of communication between oncologists and Latinos with cancer. These communication disparities are evidenced by gaps in Latino's understanding of their condition and treatment options, and by worse satisfaction with provider communication. Limited English proficiency and health literacy are very common among Latinos, yet few interventions have been developed to help Latino cancer patients better understand their condition and treatment options. In this study the investigators have partnered with Latino patients, providers, and researchers to develop a Spanish/English language intervention aimed at better informing Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal cancers about the risks and benefits of their chemotherapy options. Specifically, the intervention consists of a dual language, regimen-specific suite of videos and booklets explaining the most common chemotherapy options used to treat advanced colorectal cancer and advanced pancreatic cancer. The videos feature Latino patients describing their experiences on treatment, as well as clinicians describing factual information about treatment risks, benefits, and alternatives. In this study, self-identifying Hispanic/Latino patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer considering treatment with first line chemotherapy will be randomized to the usual care, or to usual care supplemented by access to the relevant chemotherapy educational materials. Caregivers will also be enrolled on the study. Participants will be surveyed at baseline, 2-weeks post-treatment initiation, 2-3 months post-treatment initiation, and 4-6 months post-treatment initiation regarding their understanding of chemotherapy risks and benefits, decisional conflict, and other metrics of informed decision-making.

Gastrointestinal Cancer, cancer, palliative, chemotherapy, metastatic, colorectal, pancreatic, communication, informed consent, video, education, oncology, patient-centered, outcomes research

Patients randomized to the chemotherapy education intervention (CEI) arm will be given regimen specific written and video chemotherapy educational materials developed by the study team. The treating oncologist will identify which chemotherapy regimen(s) are being considered, in order to select the appropriate chemotherapy educational tool(s) to give the patient. The patient may be given more than one CEI tool if they are considering more than one regimen. Patients randomized to the intervention arm may receive the intervention in addition to OR in place of the standard institutionally approved chemotherapy information sheets (both are acceptable); this is at the discretion of the treating site or the treating physician.

Patients randomized to the usual chemotherapy education (CE) arm will undergo the standard institutional practice of chemotherapy education. The oncologist may also choose to give the patient the institutionally approved chemotherapy information sheets according to site-specific policies and clinical practice.

Participants were asked how likely they thought chemotherapy was to cure their cancer (response options: very likely, somewhat likely, a little likely, not at all likely, don't know). Not at all likely is considered accurate, all other responses are considered inaccurate.

Participants will be asked to rate the likelihood that they would experience specific side effects as a result of the chemotherapy under consideration (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, neuropathy, myalgias/arthralgias, hair loss, diarrhea). Patients' responses will be correlated to the known side effect profile of their chemotherapy regimen. Participants who are accurate on all questions will be considered to have accurate knowledge.

Communication satisfaction: will be assessed by five communication satisfaction items from the cancer specific version of the Consumer Assessment for Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS): "How often did your doctors...listen carefully to you, explain things in a way you could understand, give you as much information as you wanted about your cancer treatments, encourage you to ask all the questions you had, and treat you with courtesy and respect?" Options: always, usually, sometimes, or never. Patient responses will be summed, with possible score of 0-100 (with higher scores indicating better communication). Patients will complete this assessment at the post-decision and 3-month survey, but our primary analysis for this outcome will consider the post-decision assessment because it is most proximate to chemotherapy decision-making and exposure to the intervention.

At the post-decision assessment, patients in the intervention arm will be asked to rate their satisfaction with the investigational chemotherapy educational materials with the following item: "Please think about the booklet, video, and website together. How would you rate them as a whole?" with response options on a 5-point likert scale where higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. (range: 1-5, 5 is best) Patients could alternatively choose "don't know, or I did not review them." Patients in the control arm will be asked to rate chemotherapy educational materials they were given with the same response options.

Decisional conflict will be assessed by the SURE test of Legare et al, which includes 4 items assessing whether patients feel (yes/no) 1) sure of their decision, 2) understand benefits and risks of each option, 3) are clear about which risks and benefits matter most to them, and 4) if they have enough support for the decision. Scores range from 0-4, with lower scores indicating more decisional conflict. Scores of 3 or less are considered positive for the presence of decisional conflict.

Achievement of Preferred Role in Treatment Decision Making Process, as Measured by Degner's Control Preferences Scale

Whether patients achieved their preferred role in decision-making will be assessed by the two-item Degner's Control Preferences Scale (CPS) which assesses and compares patients' preferred role (baseline) and achieved role (post-decision) decision-making. At baseline patients are asked so select among 5 options their preferred decision-making role - with two options representing an active role, two representing a passive role, and one representing shared decision-making. At post-decision, patients indicate what role they played in their treatment decision, with 5 similarly worded options representing active, passive, or shared decision-making. Patients whose preferred decision-making role (passive, shared, or active) matches their achieved role (passive, shared, or active) will be considered to have achieved their preferred role in their treatment decision.

Patient decisional regret will be assessed with Brehaut's 5-item Decisional Regret Scale. In this scale patients respond to a series of 5 questions about their recent treatment decision, with response options ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly agree) on a 5-point likert scale. Two items are reverse-code, averaged, and converted to a 0-100 scale by subtracting 1 and multiplying by 25. A score of 100 indicates maximal regret.

At 8-12 weeks and 6 months, patients will indicate whether they have designated a healthcare proxy, or discussed end-of-life wishes with their physicians or proxy.

Patient Inclusion Criteria: Self-identify as Hispanic/Latino Has been diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) OR locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) OR metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) AND is making a decision regarding treatment with 1st line palliative chemotherapy Treating oncologist has recommended consideration of one or more of the regimens for which we have developed chemotherapy educational (CEI) toolkits For mCRC: FOLFOX, FOLFOX + bevacizumab, FOLFIRI, FOLFIRI + bevacizumab For LAPC or mPC: FOLFIRINOX, Gemcitabine, or Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel Patients who are also considering treatment on a clinical trial of one of these regimens +/- an investigational agent would still be eligible, so long as the treating MD believes to the content of the CEI to be relevant to the trial regimen. Planning to receive treatment at the enrolling site Age ≥ 21 English or Spanish proficient Caregiver Inclusion Criteria: Caregivers of eligible patient participants Age ≥ 21 English or Spanish proficient Exclusion Criteria: For mCRC patients: Patients with oligometastatic disease who have a definitive plan for curative surgical resection are not eligible. Significant delirium/dementia as judged by the treating oncologist

Weeks JC, Catalano PJ, Cronin A, Finkelman MD, Mack JW, Keating NL, Schrag D. Patients' expectations about effects of chemotherapy for advanced cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 25;367(17):1616-25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1204410.

Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43.

Mazor KM, Street RL Jr, Sue VM, Williams AE, Rabin BA, Arora NK. Assessing patients' experiences with communication across the cancer care continuum. Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Aug;99(8):1343-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.004. Epub 2016 Mar 6.

Legare F, Kearing S, Clay K, Gagnon S, D'Amours D, Rousseau M, O'Connor A. Are you SURE?: Assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test. Can Fam Physician. 2010 Aug;56(8):e308-14.

Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):281-92. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256005.