A pharmaceutical client’s clinical trial showed positive efficacy results among patients with minimal residual disease in this blood cancer. Specific efficacy markers pointed to patients receiving a deep response through treatment with the client’s agent. To understand how to best communicate the results of the trial data and anticipate potential impact on treatment patterns, we spoke with oncologists to understand their interpretation of the recent efficacy data. Differences in US and UK physicians’ perceptions of the treatment armamentarium in this blood cancer led us to recruit a sample practicing in both countries for these focus groups.

To simulate clinical decision-making, oncologists engaged in a guided debate and deliberation session during each focus group. In this point-counterpoint style of rhetorical argumentation, oncologists develop arguments for and against the adoption of various treatment approaches for the patients they commonly treat in this type of cancer. By being required to adopt a “pro” or “con” stance, oncologists brainstormed the most compelling and evidence-based rationales for treatment choices, moving beyond habit or gut reaction to analyze both sides of the argument.

Through multiple rounds of discussion and individual reflection, participants modified and refined their initial views based on new information and insights from fellow participants. The guided deliberation provided the client with deeper insights into how oncologists formed, challenged, and evolved their opinions on complex issues in a changing treatment landscape.