Introduction 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. Methods 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. Ethics and dissemination 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.

Objective: To study the experiences, considerations, and motivations of patients with endometriosis in the decision-making process for deep endometriosis (DE) treatment options. Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth focus group methodology. Setting: University medical center. Patient(s): A total of 19 Dutch women diagnosed with DE between 27 and 47 years of age. Intervention(s): Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s): Focus group topics were disease impact and motives for treatment, expectations of the treatment process, and important factors in the decision process. Result(s): Women reported that pain, fertility, and strong fear of complications are important decisive factors in the treatment process. The goal of conceiving a child is considered important, however, sometimes doctors emphasize this topic too much. It emerged that complication counseling is frequently about surgical complications, whereas side effects of hormonal treatments are neglected. Shared decision making and information about treatment options, complications, and side effects are not always optimal, making it difficult to make a well-considered choice. Despite negative experiences encountered after surgery, the positive effect of surgery ensures that most women do not regret their choice. Conclusion(s): In the treatment decision process for patients with DE, pain is almost always the most important decisive factor. The wish to conceive and strong fear of complications can change this choice. Doctors should understand the importance of fertility for the majority of women, but, also, if this is not considered paramount, respect that view. To improve shared decision making, exploration of treatment goals, training of healthcare providers, and better patient information provision are desirable.