Search

Background: While patient-level determinants of total thyroidectomy use have been well described, surgeon-level drivers of more extensive surgery are present and less well described. This survey sought to examine the associations between surgeons' operative recommendations, their beliefs about cancer, and their attitudes about medical maximizing-minimizing. Methods: A mixed-mode, cross-sectional survey was administered in September 2020 via mail and email to 222 thyroid surgeons identified in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Physician and Other Practitioners dataset. Participants were asked their treatment recommendation for a healthy 45-year-old woman with a solitary 2.0-cm papillary thyroid cancer. Surgeons were assessed with the Brief Worry Scale and a validated, single-item measure of cancer-related worry. The Clinician Maximizer-Minimizer scale was used to assess the extent of medical care that physicians tend to favor with their patients. Participants were categorized into terciles based on their responses to the Maximizer-Minimizer scale. The highest scoring tercile ("Maximizers") was compared with the two lower terciles by Student's t-tests, chi-square, ANOVA, and logistic regression. Results: Of the 149 surgeons (response rate 67.1%), 34.9% recommended total thyroidectomy with or without central neck dissection (CND), and 65.1% recommended lobectomy. Overall, the medical Maximizer-Minimizer scale had an average score of 24.6 (SD 6.8). There were no differences between surgeons' age, race, annual thyroidectomy volume, or practice setting by their Maximizer-Minimizer classification. Participants who recommended total thyroidectomy with or without CND had significantly higher Maximizer-Minimizer scores than those recommending lobectomy (25.9 ± 7.2 vs. 23.8 ± 6.4, p = 0.03). Those classified as maximizers also had more cancer-related worry on both the single-item and Brief Worry Scales (p = 0.02). On logistic regression controlling for age, sex, race, specialty training, practice setting, and annual thyroidectomy volume, maximizers were still more likely to recommend total thyroidectomy with or without a CND (OR 2.4, [CI 1.01–5.55], p = 0.047). Conclusions: Medical maximizing-minimizing tendencies represent one of potentially many unmeasured surgeon characteristics that may explain persistent patterns of over-diagnosis, over-treatment, and over-screening. Surgeons may benefit from awareness of how their own tendencies influence their surgical recommendations in patients with low-risk thyroid cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to measure fear of thyroid cancer in the general U.S. population and identify factors associated with a high level of thyroid cancer-specific fear that may contribute to overtreatment. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using Prolific Academic Ltd.®, an online survey platform. The survey was administered in August 2020 to English speaking adults (>17 years) in the United States who were registered with Prolific. The target sample was stratified to represent the demographics of the U.S. population. A validated, eight-item breast cancer fear scale was adapted to measure thyroid cancer-specific fear. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors significantly associated with high levels of thyroid cancer-specific fear. Results: Of the 1136 respondents (94.3% eligibility), 50.4% were female, 74.1% White, and the mean age was 45 years (SD = 16 years). Overall, 47.5% of respondents had high levels of thyroid cancer-specific fear. Multivariate regression demonstrated that age <40 years (OR = 2.46 vs. 65+ [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.60–3.80]) and female gender (OR = 1.48 vs. male [CI = 1.13–1.93]) were associated with high levels of thyroid cancer fear. Believing thyroid cancer (OR = 2.71 [CI = 1.99–3.69]) and cancer in general are serious (OR = 1.53 [CI = 1.13–2.08]) were also associated with high levels of thyroid cancer fear. Respondents who overestimated thyroid cancer incidence (OR = 1.64 [CI = 1.25–2.13]) and believed they had a high chance of developing cancer (OR = 1.70 [CI = 1.19–2.42]) were also more likely to have high fear of thyroid cancer. Conclusion: Thyroid cancer-specific fear is prevalent in U.S. adults particularly in females and those younger than 40 years. Because disease-specific fear is associated with overtreatment, targeted education about the seriousness, incidence, and risk factors for developing thyroid cancer may decrease public fear and possibly overtreatment related to "scared decision-making." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Active surveillance (AS) of thyroid cancer with serial ultrasounds is a newer management option in the United States.Objective: This work aimed to understand factors associated with the adoption of AS.Methods: We surveyed endocrinologists and surgeons in the American Medical Association Masterfile. To estimate adoption, respondents recommended treatment for 2 hypothetical cases appropriate for AS. Established models of guideline implementation guided questionnaire development. Outcome measures included adoption of AS (nonadopters vs adopters, who respectively did not recommend or recommended AS at least once; and partial vs full adopters, who respectively recommended AS for one or both cases).Results: The 464 respondents (33.3% response) demographically represented specialties that treat thyroid cancer. Nonadopters (45.7%) were significantly (P < .001) less likely than adopters to practice in academic settings, see more than 25 thyroid cancer patients/year, be aware of AS, use applicable guidelines (P = .04), know how to determine whether a patient is appropriate for AS, have resources to perform AS, or be motivated to use AS. Nonadopters were also significantly more likely to be anxious or have reservations about AS, be concerned about poor outcomes, or believe AS places a psychological burden on patients. Among adopters, partial and full adopters were similar except partial adopters were less likely to discuss AS with patients (P = .03) and more likely to be anxious (P = .04), have reservations (P = .03), and have concerns about the psychological burden (P = .009) of AS. Few respondents (3.2%) believed patients were aware of AS.Conclusion: Widespread adoption of AS will require increased patient and physician awareness, interest, and evaluation of outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand how breast cancer patients experience the surgical decision process and identify strategies surgeons can employ to empower patients to engage in decision-making., Background: Patient engagement in decision-making is associated with improved patient outcomes. Although, some patients prefer that their healthcare provider drive the decision, the benefits of engaging in decision-making hold true even for patients who prefer to defer to their provider., Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with patients that experienced low engagement in clinical trial A231701CD (n=30). We used qualitative content analysis to analyze data and organize it into overarching themes that represent experiences with decision-making., Results: Patients could be grouped based on their experiences with the decision process into those that wanted to defer, share, or drive the decision. Three domains differentiated patients between groups: (1) overall disposition toward the surgeon, (2) tendency to exchange information and ask questions, and (3) attitudes toward how their preferences should shape the treatment decision. We identified surgeon behaviors that could optimize patient engagement. These opportunities were observed across all patients, regardless of their experience with the decision process., Conclusion: Surgeons can empower patients to engage in decision-making by getting to know patients as individuals, ensuring all treatment options are presented, and integrating patient preferences into the decision process. Through these actions, surgeons can help patients with varied preferences for decision-making engage in making high quality decisions that reflect patients' priorities. These suggestions may have the greatest impact on socially disadvantaged patients and help to reduce disparities in care., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2025 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Little is known about how patients' emotions impact the choice between hemi- and total thyroidectomy (TT) for low-risk thyroid cancer (LR-TC) and how these emotions change after treatment., Objective: To investigate thyroid cancer-specific fear and worry both before and after treatment of LR-TC with hemi- or TT., Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled adults with confirmed or likely LR-TC at 15 institutions. Participants completed measures of thyroid cancer-related fear and worry at the time of their treatment decision and 9-months later. Participants were categorized as having low, medium, or high levels of fear and worry in accordance with the literature. Those choosing hemi-thyroidectomy were compared to those choosing TT., Results: Of 177eligible patients, 125 (70.6%) enrolled and 114 completed both surveys (91.2% retention). Overall, 41 (36.0%) participants chose hemi-thyroidectomy and 73 (64.0%) chose TT. Across all participants, thyroid cancer-related fear and worry both decreased significantly after surgery (fear 25.8±6.4 to 23.1±7.4; worry 8.2±2.4 to 5.4±2.1, p<0.001). The proportion of participants with high fear decreased from 64.9% to 50.9%, while the proportion with high worry decreased from 75.4% to 41.2% (p<0.001 for both). At both time points, no differences existed between those choosing hemi- and TT in levels of worry or fear., Conclusion: Patients with LR-TC report lower levels of fear and worry 9-months after surgery regardless of the extent of surgery, suggesting that both surgeries provide an emotional benefit to some patients. Thyroid cancer-related fear and worry do not appear to influence patients' decisions to undergo hemi- or TT., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com. See the journal About page for additional terms.)