Neural mechanisms regulating different forms of risk-related decision-making: Insights from animal models

Over the past 20 years there has been a growing interest in the neural underpinnings of cost/benefit decision-making. Recent studies with animal models have made considerable advances in our understanding of how different prefrontal, striatal, limbic and monoaminergic circuits interact to promote efficient risk/reward decision-making, and how dysfunction in these circuits underlies aberrant decision-making observed in numerous psychiatric disorders. This review will highlight recent findings from studies exploring these questions using a variety of behavioral assays, as well as molecular, pharmacological, neurophysiological, and translational approaches. We begin with a discussion of how neural systems related to decision subcomponents may interact to generate more complex decisions involving risk and uncertainty. This is followed by an overview of interactions between prefrontal-amygdala-dopamine and habenular circuits in regulating choice between certain and uncertain rewards and how different modes of dopamine transmission may contribute to these processes. These data will be compared with results from other studies investigating the contribution of some of these systems to guiding decision-making related to rewards vs. punishment. Lastly, we provide a brief summary of impairments in risk-related decision-making associated with psychiatric disorders, highlighting recent translational studies in laboratory animals.     

Patient Selection for Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Consensus on Decision Making Among International Experts

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) treatment for patients with peritoneal metastases is complex. The use of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has continued to be debated. The aim of the present study was to assess the consensus among international experts for decision-making regarding the use of CRS and HIPEC for patients with CRC.Materials and MethodsOf 15 experts invited, 12 had provided their decision algorithms for CRS and HIPEC for patients with, or at high risk of, peritoneal metastases from CRC. Using the objective consensus method, the results were transformed into decision trees to provide information on the consensus and discordance.ResultsOnly 1 scenario was found for which the consensus on performing HIPEC had reached 100%. The scenario was the treatment of young patients with complete cytoreduction and a peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) of < 16 in the presence of certain risk factors. Five major decision criteria were identified: age, PCI, completeness of cytoreduction, extent of extraperitoneal metastases (EoMs), and, in the case of unverified EoMs, additional risk factors. Consensus was found regarding refraining from using HIPEC for older patients with a high PCI. The consensus further increased when addressing incomplete cytoreduction and an extensive extent of EoMs.ConclusionA definite consensus concerning the use of HIPEC was only determined for very selected scenarios. These findings can be used for general guidance; however, owing to the heterogeneity of each individual situation, the impracticality of presenting the information through decision trees, and the unclear future of the role of HIPEC in the adjuvant setting, a one-on-one transfer to daily clinical practice could not be achieved.     

Riesgo de recurrencia tras retirada de la anticoagulación en pacientes con enfermedad tromboembólica venosa no provocada: validación externa del nomograma de Viena y del modelo predictivo DASH

IntroductionScales for predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence are useful for deciding the duration of the anticoagulant treatment. Although there are several scales, the most appropriate for our setting has not been identified. For this reason, we aimed to validate the DASH prediction score and the Vienna nomogram at 12 months.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of unselected consecutive VTE patients seen between 2006 and 2014. We compared the ability of the DASH score and the Vienna nomogram to predict recurrences of VTE. The validation was performed by stratifying patients as low-risk or high-risk, according to each scale (discrimination) and comparing the observed recurrence with the expected rate (calibration).ResultsOf 353 patients evaluated, 195 were analyzed, with an average age of 53.5 ± 19 years. There were 21 recurrences in 1 year (10.8%, 95% CI: 6.8%-16%). According to the DASH score, 42% were classified as low risk, and the rate of VTE recurrence in this group was 4.9% (95% CI: 1.3%-12%) vs. the high-risk group that was 15% (95% CI: 9%-23%) (p <.05). According to the Vienna nomogram, 30% were classified as low risk, and the rate of VTE recurrence in the low risk group vs. the high risk group was 4.2% (95% CI:0.5%-14%) vs. 16.2% (95% CI: 9.9%-24.4%) (p <.05).ConclusionsOur study validates the DASH score and the Vienna nomogram in our population. The DASH prediction score may be the most advisable, both because of its simplicity and its ability to identify more low-risk patients than the Vienna nomogram (42% vs. 30%).     

Risk communication in a patient decision aid for radiotherapy in breast cancer: How to deal with uncertainty?

Background and aimPatient decision aids for oncological treatment options, provide information on the effect on recurrence rates and/or survival benefit, and on side-effects and/or burden of different treatment options. However, often uncertainty exists around the probability estimates for recurrence/survival and side-effects which is too relevant to be ignored. Evidence is lacking on the best way to communicate these uncertainties. The aim of this study is to develop a method to incorporate uncertainties in a patient decision aid for breast cancer patients to support their decision on radiotherapy.MethodsFirstly, qualitative interviews were held with patients and health care professionals. Secondly, in the development phase, thinking aloud sessions were organized with four patients and 12 health care professionals, individual and group-wise.ResultsConsensus was reached on a pictograph illustrating the whole range of uncertainty for local recurrence risks, in combination with textual explanation that a more exact personalized risk would be given by their own physician. The pictograph consisted of 100 female icons in a 10 x 10 array. Icons with a stepwise gradient color indicated the uncertainty margin. The prevalence and severity of possible side-effects were explained using verbal labels.ConclusionsWe developed a novel way of visualizing uncertainties in recurrence rates in a patient decision aid. The effect of this way of communicating risk uncertainty is currently being tested in the BRASA study (NCT03375801).     

Do Subjective Norms Predict the Screening of Cancer Patients’ First-Degree Relatives? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Early detection and preventive measures can reduce the risk of cancer among first degree relatives (FDRs) of cancer patients.Several studies investigated the effect of subjective norm in relation to FDRs’ tendency to conduct preventive behaviors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the effect of subjective norms on cancer patients’ FDRs as well as their willingness for screening. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were studied to investigate the effect of subjective norms on preventive measures such as breast cancer self-examination, colonoscopy, PSA testing, skin examination, and genetic testing. Odds Ratio (OR), correlation was and confidence intervals were extracted for meta-analysis. After reviewing the studies, only 16 studies met the criteria to be included in this systematic review. Results: The meta- analysis and OR showed that Physician Recommendation (OR=6.98, 95% CI; 2.55–19.09, P<0.001), Health Care Provider (HCP) (OR=2.79, 95% CI; 1.26-6.16; P=0.011), family and friends (OR=1.82, 95% CI; 1.33–2.50, P <0.001) significantly enhanced the likelihood of referring for screening and preventive measures. Conclusions: The results of the current study indicated that subjective norms can significantly increase willingness to screening.     

Decision analysis model of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery

Background The incidence rate of incisional hernias after open surgery has been reported to be higher than that of port site hernias after laparoscopic surgery. No studies have compared the costs for the health care system in treating those two types of hernia. Methods A systematic review was conducted to obtain the baseline data, and a decision analysis model was created to simulate the occurrence and recurrence of incisional and port site hernias. Results The overall risk of having incisional hernias was eight-times higher than that of having port site hernias (7.4% vs 0.9%). A cost savings of ￡93 per patient can be generated for the health care system in the UK. Similar results were obtained for Germany, Italy and France. Conclusions The additional treatment costs for incisional hernia should be taken into account when the costs of a surgery performed by open approach are compared with by laparoscopy.     

When should bone density measurements be repeated?

We calculated how long to wait before repeating bone mineral density (BMD) measurements to reassess fracture risk. Correlation results from serial measurements of 495 postmenopausal Japanese-American women were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for future BMD. After 7 years of follow-up, BMD correlations with the initial measurement ranged between 0.81 and 0.94, depending on age group and measurement site. In this analysis, the period between measurements was defined as the time required for the lower 95% CI to fall below the BMD value corresponding to doubling of fracture risk. Progressive bone loss causes fracture risk to double after 10 years, on average. However, the 95% CIs indicate that a second BMD measurement will detect risk doubling after only 2 or 3 years for some women. For untreated, early postmenopausal women, the period between measurements was approximately 2–5 years for the radius and 4–6 years for the calcaneus, depending on the initial BMD level. The period was approximately 1 year longer for women age 60 and older. Treatments that halve the bone loss rate would increase the period by 1–3 years. In the absence of a second measurement of BMD, the CI will continue to expand with time, corresponding to a wider range in risk between individuals, and a greater proportion of women will be at increased fracture risk. Obtaining a second BMD measurement pinpoints the patient's status within the precision of the measurement. We conclude that repeated BMD measurements will provide a more accurate estimate of fracture risk than a single, baseline measurement.