Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients.

The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals.

The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.

NL9160, NCT05741944.

In population-based research, disease ascertainment algorithms can be as accurate as, and less costly than, performing supplementary clinical examinations on selected participants to confirm a diagnosis of a neurocognitive disorder (NCD), but they require cohort-specific validation. To optimise the use of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) to understand the epidemiology and burden of NCDs, the CLSA Memory Study will validate an NCD ascertainment algorithm to identify CLSA participants with these disorders using routinely acquired study data.

Up to 600 CLSA participants with equal numbers of those likely to have no NCD, mild NCD or major NCD based on prior self-reported physician diagnosis of a memory problem or dementia, medication consumption (ie, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine) and/or self-reported function will be recruited during the follow-up 3 CLSA evaluations (started August 2021). Participants will undergo an assessment by a study clinician who will also review an informant interview and make a preliminary determination of the presence or absence of an NCD. The clinical assessment and available CLSA data will be reviewed by a Central Review Panel who will make a final categorisation of participants as having (1) no NCD, (2) mild NCD or, (3) major NCD (according to fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria). These will be used as our gold standard diagnosis to determine if the NCD ascertainment algorithm accurately identifies CLSA participants with an NCD. Weighted Kappa statistics will be the primary measure of agreement. Sensitivity, specificity, the C-statistic and the phi coefficient will also be estimated.

Ethics approval has been received from the institutional research ethics boards for each CLSA Data Collection Site (Université de Sherbrooke, Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, University of Manitoba, McGill University, McGill University Health Centre Research Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, University of Victoria, Élisabeth Bruyère Research Institute of Ottawa, University of British Columbia, Island Health (Formerly the Vancouver Island Health Authority, Simon Fraser University, Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board).

The results of this work will be disseminated to public health professionals, researchers, health professionals, administrators and policy-makers through journal publications, conference presentations, publicly available reports and presentations to stakeholder groups.