Evaluating the effectiveness of a risk prediction model (PERSARC) on improving treatment decisions quality for patients with soft-tissue sarcomas: the VALUE-PERSARC study

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). 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. 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%). 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). 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2025-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-025-03166-6
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the effectiveness of a risk prediction model (PERSARC) on improving treatment decisions quality for patients with soft-tissue sarcomas: the VALUE-PERSARC study

Cornelis Verhoef, Marta Fiocco, Yvonne Schrage, Anouk A. Kruiswijk et al.
1 citations
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
1.52
article

Evaluating the effectiveness of a risk prediction model (PERSARC) on improving treatment decisions quality for patients with soft-tissue sarcomas: the VALUE-PERSARC study

Cornelis Verhoef, Marta Fiocco, Yvonne Schrage, Anouk A. Kruiswijk, Ellen G. Engelhardt, Leti van Bodegom‐Vos, Michiel A. J. van de Sande, Arjen J. Witkamp, Rick L. Haas, Robert J. van Ginkel, Perla J. Marang‐van de Mheen, Marc H.A. Bemelmans, Han J. Bonenkamp, Lisa A. E. Vlug
article en
1 citations

Abstract

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). 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. 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%). 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). 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.

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingVol. 25(1)
Leiden University (NL), University Medical Center Groningen (NL), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Leiden University Medical Center (NL), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Maastricht University (NL), Oncode Institute (NL), Erasmus MC Cancer Institute (NL), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
1.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.