Author:
Czornik Manuel,Weis Joachim,Kiemen Andrea,Schmoor Claudia,Hipp Julian,Hoeppner Jens
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
For patients with clinical complete response of non-metastatic esophageal cancer (EC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), the two treatment options obligate postneoadjuvant surgery as the current standard treatment (surgery on principle) versus active surveillance with surgery as needed only in recurring loco-regional tumor as a possible future alternative or standard exist. Since these treatments are presumably equivalent in terms of overall survival, patient-centered information can encourage the discussion with the treating physician and can make it easier for patients to make trade-offs between the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment alternatives in a highly distressed situation.
Methods
A qualitative prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to create patient-centered information material that is based on patients’ preferences, needs, and concerns regarding the two treatment options, and to investigate the potential participation in a consecutive randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, EC patients (N = 11) were asked about their attitudes.
Results
Concerns about the surgery and possible postoperative impairments in quality of life were identified as most mentioned negative aspects of surgery on principle, and recurrence and progression fear and the concern that surgery cannot be avoided anyways as most named negative aspects of surgery as needed. In regard to the participation in an RCT, making a contribution to science and the hope that the novel therapy would be superior to the established one were relevant arguments to participate. On the other hand, the lack of a proactive selection of treatment was named an important barrier to participation in an RCT.
Conclusion
The importance of adapting medical conversations to the patients’ lack of expertise and their exceptional cognitive and emotional situation is stressed. Results of this study can be used to improve patient-centered information and the recruitment of patients in RCTs in cancer.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference28 articles.
1. Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ (2003) Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 349:2241–2252. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra035010
2. Daly JM, Fry WA, Little AG et al (2000) Esophageal cancer: results of an American College of Surgeons patient care evaluation study1. J Am Coll Surg 190:562–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00238-6
3. Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, Luketich JD (2013) Oesophageal carcinoma. The Lancet 381:400–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60643-6
4. Ries LA, Eisner MP, Kosary CL et al (1973–1996) SEER cancer statistics review. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD. https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1973_1996/
5. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I et al (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492