Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer

Characteristics Predicting Short-Term and Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is associated with lasting effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patients desire detailed information on the expected impact of treatment on their postoperative HRQOL. The aim of the present study is to identify clinicopathological characteristics predictive for changes in short-term and long-term HRQOL after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery.

METHODS

HRQOL was measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES24 questionnaires prior to nCRT, three, six, nine and twelve months postoperatively and at a minimum of six years postoperatively. Based on previous experience and available literature, several subgroups were predefined for different clinicopathological characteristics: baseline global HRQOL, WHO performance status, histology, tumor stage and tumor location. The primary endpoints of the present study were the change compared to baseline in the HRQOL dimensions physical functioning and eating problems. Secondary endpoints were global HRQOL, fatigue and emotional problems.

RESULTS

In total, 134 (76%) of 177 patients who received HRQOL questionnaires, responded at baseline. Patients who reported a high baseline global HRQOL had a more severe deterioration in eating problems (+14.5 to + 18.0), global HRQOL (-16.0 to -28.0) and fatigue (+10.5 to +14.9) up to six years postoperatively compared to patients who reported a low baseline global HRQOL. Patients who had stage 2 tumor (UICC 6th edition) had a more severe deterioration in eating problems (+14.6 to +19.0) and global HRQOL (-10.1 to -17.1) than patients who had stage 3 tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer in favorable condition at baseline decline more in terms of various HRQOL outcomes.

Differences between physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is useful to facilitate cancer treatment decisions. However, it is difficult to make treatment decisions when physician and patient preferences are different. This review aimed to summarize and compare the preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus. Studies elicited and compared preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients were included. Information about the study design and preference measuring attributes or questions were extracted. The available relative rank of every attribute in discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies and answers to preference measuring questions in non-DCE studies were summarized followed by a narrative synthesis to reflect the preference differences.

RESULTS

Of 12,959 studies identified, 8290 were included in the title and abstract screening and 48 were included in the full text screening. Included 37 studies measured the preferences from six treatment-related aspects: health benefit, adverse effects, treatment process, cost, impact on quality of life, and provider qualification. The trade-off between health benefit and adverse effects was the main focus of the included studies. DCE studies showed patients gave a higher rank on health benefit and treatment process, while physicians gave a higher rank on adverse effects. Non-DCE studies suggested that patients were willing to take a higher risk of adverse effects or lower health benefit than physicians when accepting a treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians and patients had important preference differences for cancer treatment. More sufficient communication is needed in cancer treatment decision-making.

Which Factors Are Considered by Patients When Considering Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Discrete-choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

TKA and THA are major surgical procedures, and they are associated with the potential for serious, even life-threatening complications. Patients must weigh the risks of these complications against the benefits of surgery. However, little is known about the relative importance patients place on the potential complications of surgery compared with any potential benefit the procedures may achieve. Furthermore, patient preferences may often be discordant with surgeon preferences regarding the treatment decision-making process. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) is a quantitative survey technique designed to elicit patient preferences by presenting patients with two or more hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario is composed of several attributes or factors, and the relative extent to which respondents prioritize these attributes can be quantified to assess preferences when making a decision, such as whether to pursue lower extremity arthroplasty.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this DCE, we asked: (1) Which patient-related factors (such as pain and functional level) and surgery-related factors (such as the risk of infection, revision, or death) are influential in patients' decisions about whether to undergo lower extremity arthroplasty? (2) Which of these factors do patients emphasize the most when making this decision?

METHODS

A DCE was designed with the following attributes: pain; physical function; return to work; and infection risks, reoperation, implant failure leading to premature revision, deep vein thrombosis, and mortality. From October 2021 to March 2022, we recruited all new patients to two arthroplasty surgeons' clinics who were older than 18 years and scheduled for a consultation for knee- or hip-related complaints who had no previous history of a primary TKA or THA. A total of 56% (292 of 517) of new patients met the inclusion criteria and were approached with the opportunity to complete the DCE. Among the cohort, 51% (150 of 292) of patients completed the DCE. Patients were administered the DCE, which consisted of 10 hypothetical scenarios that had the patient decide between a surgical and nonsurgical outcome, each consisting of varying levels of eight attributes (such as infection, reoperation, and ability to return to work). A subsequent demographic questionnaire followed this assessment. To answer our first research question about the patient-related and surgery-related factors that most influence patients' decisions to undergo lower extremity arthroplasty, we used a conditional logit regression to control for potentially confounding attributes from within the DCE and determine which variables shifted a patient's determination to pursue surgery. To answer our second question, about which of these factors received the greatest priority by patients, we compared the relevant importance of each factor, as determined by each factor's beta coefficient, against each other influential factor. A larger absolute value of beta coefficient reflects a relatively higher degree of importance placed on a variable compared with other variables within our study. Of the respondents, 57% (85 of 150) were women, and the mean age at the time of participation was 64 ± 10 years. Most respondents (95% [143 of 150]) were White. Regarding surgery, 38% (57 of 150) were considering THA, 59% (88 of 150) were considering TKA, and 3% (5 of 150) were considering both. Among the cohort, 49% (74 of 150) of patients reported their average pain level as severe, or 7 to 10 on a scale from 0 to 10, and 47% (71 of 150) reported having 50% of full physical function.

RESULTS

Variables that were influential to respondents when deciding on lower extremity total joint arthroplasty were improvement from severe pain to minimal pain (β coefficient: -0.59 [95% CI -0.72 to -0.46]; p < 0.01), improvement in physical function level from 50% to 100% (β: -0.80 [95% CI -0.9 to -0.7]; p < 0.01), ability to return to work versus inability to return (β: -0.38 [95% CI -0.48 to -0.28]; p < 0.01), and the surgery-related factor of risk of infection (β: -0.22 [95% CI -0.30 to -0.14]; p < 0.01). Improvement in physical function from 50% to 100% was the most important for patients making this decision because it had the largest absolute coefficient value of -0.80. To improve physical function from 50% to 100% and reduce pain from severe to minimal because of total joint arthroplasty, patients were willing to accept a hypothetical absolute (and not merely an incrementally increased) 37% and 27% risk of infection, respectively. When we stratified our analysis by respondents' preoperative pain levels, we identified that only patients with severe pain at the time of their appointment found the risk of infection influential in their decision-making process (β: -0.27 [95% CI -0.37 to -0.17]; p = 0.01) and were willing to accept a 24% risk of infection to improve their physical functioning from 50% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that patients consider pain alleviation, physical function improvement, and infection risk to be the most important attributes when considering total joint arthroplasty. Patients with severe baseline pain demonstrated a willingness to take on a hypothetically high infection risk as a tradeoff for improved physical function or pain relief. Because patients seemed to prioritize postoperative physical function so highly in our study, it is especially important that surgeons customize their presentations about the likelihood an individual patient will achieve a substantial functional improvement as part of any office visit where arthroplasty is discussed. Future studies should focus on quantitatively assessing patients' understanding of surgical risks after a surgical consultation, especially in patients who may be the most risk tolerant.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons should be aware that patients with the most limited physical function and the highest baseline pain levels are more willing to accept the more potentially life-threatening and devastating risks that accompany total joint arthroplasty, specifically infection. The degree to which patients seemed to undervalue the harms of infection (based on our knowledge and perception of those harms) suggests that surgeons need to take particular care in explaining the degree to which a prosthetic joint infection can harm or kill patients who develop one.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery for locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The literature lacks robust evidence comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (nCRS) for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study aimed to compare long-term survival of these approaches in patients with ESCC.

METHODS

A systematic review performed according to PRISMA guidelines included studies identified from PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to July 2021 comparing outcomes between dCRT and nCRS for ESCC. The main outcome measure was overall survival (OS), secondary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects modelling to determine pooled adjusted multivariable hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Ten studies including 14 092 patients were included, of which 30 per cent received nCRS. Three studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the remainder were retrospective cohort studies. dCRT and nCRS regimens were reported in six studies and surgical quality control was reported in two studies. Outcomes for OS and DFS were reported in eight and three studies respectively. Following meta-analysis, nCRS demonstrated significantly longer OS (HR 0.68, 95 per cent c.i. 0.54 to 0.87, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.50, 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.70, P < 0.001) compared with dCRT.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy correlated with improved survival compared with definitive chemoradiation in the treatment of ESCC; however, there is a lack of literature on RCTs.

Modeling Optimal Clinical Thresholds for Elective Abdominal Hernia Repair in Patients With Cirrhosis

IMPORTANCE

Patients with cirrhosis have increased risk of postoperative mortality. Several models have been developed to estimate this risk; however, current risk estimation scores cannot compare surgical risk with the risk of not operating.

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinical optimal thresholds to favor operative or nonoperative management for a common cirrhosis surgical scenario, the symptomatic abdominal hernia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a Markov cohort decision analytical modeling study evaluating elective surgery vs nonoperative management for a symptomatic abdominal hernia in a patient with cirrhosis. Transition probabilities and utilities were derived from the literature and from data using an established cirrhosis cohort in the Veterans Health Administration. Participants included patients who were referred to a surgery clinic for a symptomatic abdominal hernia. Data were obtained from patients diagnosed with cirrhosis between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from January 1 to May 1, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each pathway and iterated over baseline model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) scores ranging from 6 to 25. Markov models were cycled over a 5-year time horizon.

RESULTS

A total 2740 patients with cirrhosis (median [IQR] age, 62 [56-66] years; 2699 [98.5%] men) were referred to a surgery clinic for a symptomatic abdominal hernia; 1752 patients (63.9%) did not receive surgery. The median (IQR) follow-up was 42.1 (25.3-70.0) months. Using this cohort to estimate the mortality risk of operative and nonoperative pathways, an initial MELD-Na threshold of 21.3 points, below which surgery was associated with maximized QALYs was identified. Nonoperative management was associated with increased QALYs above this MELD-Na threshold. Although more patients experienced death with a surgical treatment decision across all initial MELD-Na values, this was counterbalanced by increased time spent in a resolved hernia state associated with increased utility. Model results were sensitive to the probability of hernia recurrence and hernia incarceration and utility decrement in the symptomatic hernia state.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This decision analytical model study found that elective surgical treatment for a symptomatic abdominal hernia was favored even in the setting of relatively high MELD-Na scores. Patient symptoms, hernia-specific characteristics, and surgeon and center expertise may potentially impact the optimal strategy, emphasizing the importance of shared decision-making.

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient.

Abstract

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.

Study Protocol of a Prospective Multicenter Study on Patient Participation for the Clinical Trial: Surgery as Needed Versus Surgery on Principle in Post-Neoadjuvant Complete Tumor Response of Esophageal Cancer (ESORES)

Ideally, patient-centered trial information material encourages the discussion with the treating physician, and helps patients making trade-offs regarding treatment decisions In a situation of possible equivalent treatment options in terms of overall survival (OS), it can make it easier to weigh up advantages and disadvantages. Preferences for choice of treatment in esophageal cancer (EC) are complex, and no standardized assessment tools are available. We will explore patient’s factors for treatment choice and develop a comprehensive patient information leaflet for the inclusion into randomized controlled trials (RCT) on EC. We conduct a cross-sectional, observational study based on a mixed-methods design with patients suffering from non-metastatic EC with post-neoadjuvant complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), to develop patient-centered trial information material. This pilot study is performed in a concept development phase and a subsequent pilot phase. We start with patient interviews (n = 10–15) in the concept development phase to evaluate patients’ needs, and develop a Preference and Decision Aid Questionnaire (PDAQ). We pre-test the PDAQ with another n = 10 patients with EC after nCT or nCRT, former patients from a self-help organization, and n = 10 medical experts for their comments on the questionnaire. In the pilot phase, a multicenter trial using the PDAQ and additional measures is carried out (n = 120). Based on evidence of a possible equivalence in terms of OS of the treatment options “surgery as needed” and “surgery on principle” in patients with post-neoadjuvant complete response of EC, this pilot study on patient participation is conducted to assess patient’s needs and preferences, and optimize patients’ inclusion in a planned RCT. The aim is to develop patient-centered trial information material for the RCT to increase patients’ consent and compliance with the randomized treatment. The trial is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00022050, October 15, 2020).

Preferences for active surveillance or standard oesophagectomy: discrete-choice experiment

Over one-quarter of patients would choose not to undergo standard oesophagectomy again, at least 1 year after they underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and standard oesophagectomy. These patients had worse short- and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than patients who chose standard oesophagectomy. Considering both treatments, 5-year survival and long-term HRQoL were considered most important factors by individual patients.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

BACKGROUND

As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance.

RESULT

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed.

LIMITATIONS

No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

Relationships between health literacy, having a cancer care coordinator, and long-term health-related quality of life among cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Care coordination is a strategy to reduce healthcare navigation challenges for cancer patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the association between having a cancer care coordinator (CCC) and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and to evaluate whether this association differed by level of health literacy.

METHODS

A population-based sample of survivors diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer in 2015 from the Iowa Cancer Registry participated in an online survey conducted in 2017-2018 (N = 368). Chi-squared tests and logistic regression were used to model the association between patient characteristics and having a cancer care coordinator. Linear regression was used to model the association between patient perception of having a cancer care coordinator and post-treatment physical or mental HRQoL by differing levels of health literacy while controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors.

RESULTS

Most survivors (81%) reported having one healthcare professional who coordinated their cancer care. Overall, patient perception of having a coordinator was not significantly associated with physical HRQoL (p = 0.118). However, participants with low health literacy (21%) who had a coordinator had significantly higher physical HRQoL scores compared to those who did not (adjusted mean difference 5.2, p = 0.010), while not so for medium (29%) or high (51%) health literacy (p = 0.227, and p = 0.850, respectively; test for interaction p = 0.001). Mental HRQoL was not associated with having a coordinator in our analyses.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that care coordinators improved post-treatment physical HRQoL, particularly for participants with low health literacy. Care coordinators may be beneficial to the most vulnerable patients struggling to navigate the complex healthcare system during cancer treatment. Future research should focus on the mechanisms by which care coordination may affect post-treatment HRQoL.

Quality of life in patients with upper GI malignancies managed by a strategy of chemoradiotherapy alone versus surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) induces a pathological complete response (pCR) in 25-85% of oesophago-gastric cancer. As surgery entails morbidity and mortality risks and quality of life (QL) impairment, its avoidance in patients without residual disease is desirable. This study aimed to compare quality of life of patients with a cCR who chose surveillance with those who chose surgery.

METHODS

Four groups of patients were studied. Group 1(n = 31) were controls; Group 2 (n = 26) had chemoradiotherapy only; Group 3 (n = 31) had oesophagectomy after nCRT; Group 4 (n = 26) had gastrectomy alone. A 33-point novel questionnaire was administered at two 3 month time points. Participants were also interviewed with a validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

Mean(±sd) quality of life scores in cCR patients offered surveillance (28.9 ± 4.5) were superior to patients undergoing oesophagectomy (32.3 ± 58. p=0.042) or gastrectomy (33.19 ± 5.9, p=0.004). This result was replicated in the validated questionnaire (p=0.017). There was a trend towards increased reflux-related respiratory symptoms in the oesophagectomy group (7.3 ± 2.2 vs 6.5 ± 1.9; p=0.396) and towards early dumping (8.2 ± 1.4 vs 7.1 ± 1.; p=0.239) and vagotomy-related symptoms (1.82 ± 0.9 vs 1.4 ± 0.6; p=0.438) in the gastrectomy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Avoidance of surgery in cCR patients is rewarded with a superior quality of life to those undergoing surgery.

Psychological support of esophageal cancer patient?

Important questions are still open about psychological aspects in esophageal cancer (EC) and about the related psychological support. How to cope with the cancer diagnosis and poor prognosis: a psychological counselling may be a valid option to personalize the communication to patients with a poor prognosis. How to cope with long chemoradiotherapy: after neoadjuvant therapy, patients know that curative process is not completed, and they perceive the severity of the neoadjuvant side effects, considering themselves "fragile" and far from a healthy condition before the major surgery they are going to undergo. Therefore, this is a particularly crucial point when psychological support may be useful. How to cope with change of nutritional habits: esophagectomy for cancer strongly impairs nutritional function in the early postoperative period and feeding Jejunostomy impairs emotional function. How to cope with sleep disturbances: most cancer patients report disturbed sleep after cancer diagnosis and/or following cancer treatment. Psychological intervention aims to identify underlying concerns worsening sleep quality. How to cope with postoperative complications: the occurrence of such complications reduces patient's satisfaction and has a negative effect on doctor-patient relationship. How to cope with long-term functions impairment: EC patients need a plan for the future.

Patients' preferences for treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer

Background

After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery for oesophageal cancer, 29 per cent of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. Active surveillance after nCRT (instead of standard oesophagectomy) may improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but patients need to undergo frequent diagnostic tests and it is unknown whether survival is worse than that after standard oesophagectomy. Factors that influence patients' preferences, and trade-offs that patients are willing to make in their choice between surgery and active surveillance were investigated here.

Methods

A prospective discrete-choice experiment was conducted. Patients with oesophageal cancer completed questionnaires 4–6 weeks after nCRT, before surgery. Patients' preferences were quantified using scenarios based on five aspects: 5-year overall survival, short-term HRQoL, long-term HRQoL, the risk that oesophagectomy is still necessary, and the frequency of clinical examinations using endoscopy and PET–CT. Panel latent class analysis was used.

Results

Some 100 of 104 patients (96·2 per cent) responded. All aspects, except the frequency of clinical examinations, influenced patients' preferences. Five-year overall survival, the chance that oesophagectomy is still necessary and long-term HRQoL were the most important attributes. On average, based on calculation of the indifference point between standard surgery and active surveillance, patients were willing to trade off 16 per cent 5-year overall survival to reduce the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary from 100 per cent (standard surgery) to 35 per cent (active surveillance).

Conclusion

Patients are willing to trade off substantial 5-year survival to achieve a reduction in the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary.

Prediction models for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Clinical prediction models are increasingly used to predict outcomes such as survival in cancer patients. The aim of this study was threefold. First, to perform a systematic review to identify available clinical prediction models for patients with esophageal and/or gastric cancer. Second, to evaluate sources of bias in the included studies. Third, to investigate the predictive performance of the prediction models using meta-analysis.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched for publications from the year 2000 onwards. Studies describing models predicting survival, adverse events and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for esophageal or gastric cancer patients were included. Potential sources of bias were assessed and a meta-analysis, pooled per prediction model, was performed on the discriminative abilities (c-indices).

Results

A total of 61 studies were included (45 development and 16 validation studies), describing 47 prediction models. Most models predicted survival after a curative resection. Nearly 75% of the studies exhibited bias in at least 3 areas and model calibration was rarely reported. The meta-analysis showed that the averaged c-index of the models is fair (0.75) and ranges from 0.65 to 0.85.

Conclusion

Most available prediction models only focus on survival after a curative resection, which is only relevant to a limited patient population. Few models predicted adverse events after resection, and none focused on patient’s HRQoL, despite its relevance. Generally, the quality of reporting is poor and external model validation is limited. We conclude that there is a need for prediction models that better meet patients’ information needs, and provide information on both the benefits and harms of the various treatment options in terms of survival, adverse events and HRQoL.

Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

INTRODUCTION

As several studies have been conducted to elicit patients' preferences for cancer treatment, it is important to provide an overview and synthesis of these studies. This study aimed to systematically review discrete choice experiments (DCEs) about patients' preferences for cancer treatment and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all DCEs investigating patients' preferences for cancer treatment between January 2010 and April 2016. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and a reporting quality assessment was applied to all studies. Attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes, and their relative importance was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 28 DCEs were identified. More than half of the studies (56%) received an aggregate score lower than 4 on the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) 5-point scale. Most attributes were related to outcome (70%), followed by process (25%) and cost (5%). Outcome attributes were most often significant (81%), followed by process (73%) and cost (67%). The relative importance of outcome attributes was ranked highest in 82% of the cases where it was included, followed by cost (43%) and process (12%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that attributes related to cancer treatment outcomes are the most important for patients. Process and cost attributes were less often included in studies but were still (but less) important to patients in most studies. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware that attribute importance might be influenced by level selection for that attribute.

Nutrition in peri-operative esophageal cancer management

Nutritional status and dietary intake are increasingly recognized as essential areas in esophageal cancer management. Nutritional management of esophageal cancer is a continuously evolving field and comprises an interesting area for scientific research. Areas covered: This review encompasses the current literature on nutrition in the pre-operative, peri-operative, and post-operative phases of esophageal cancer. Both established interventions and potential novel targets for nutritional management are discussed. Expert commentary: To ensure an optimal pre-operative status and to reduce peri-operative complications, it is key to assess nutritional status in all pre-operative esophageal cancer patients and to apply nutritional interventions accordingly. Since esophagectomy results in a permanent anatomical change, a special focus on nutritional strategies is needed in the post-operative phase, including early initiation of enteral feeding, nutritional interventions for post-operative complications, and attention to long-term nutritional intake and status. Nutritional aspects of pre-optimization and peri-operative management should be incorporated in novel Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs for esophageal cancer.

Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

OBJECTIVES

To review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.

METHODS

A systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

Factors that influence variation in clinical decision-making about thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke: results of a discrete choice experiment

Background

Intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute ischaemic stroke is underused (only 80% of eligible patients receive it) and there is variation in its use across the UK. Previously, variation might have been explained by structural differences; however, continuing variation may reflect differences in clinical decision-making regarding the eligibility of patients for treatment. This variation in decision-making could lead to the underuse, or result in inappropriate use, of thrombolysis.

Objectives

To identify the factors which contribute to variation in, and influence, clinicians’ decision-making about treating ischaemic stroke patients with intravenous thrombolysis.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) using hypothetical patient vignettes framed around areas of clinical uncertainty was conducted to better understand the influence of patient-related and clinician-related factors on clinical decision-making. An online DCE was developed following an iterative five-stage design process. UK-based clinicians involved in final decision-making about thrombolysis were invited to take part via national professional bodies of relevant medical specialties. Mixed-logit regression analyses were conducted.

Results

A total of 138 clinicians responded and opted to offer thrombolysis in 31.4% of cases. Seven patient factors were individually predictive of the increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (compared with reference levels in brackets): stroke onset time of 2 hours 30 minutes (50 minutes); pre-stroke dependency modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) of 3 (mRS4); systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 185 mmHg (140 mmHg); stroke severity scores of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 5 without aphasia, NIHSS 14 and NIHSS 23 (NIHSS 2 without aphasia); age 85 years (65 years); and Afro-Caribbean (white). Factors predictive of not offering thrombolysis were age 95 years; stroke onset time of 4 hours 15 minutes; severe dementia (no memory problems); and SBP of 200 mmHg. Three clinician-related factors were predictive of an increased likelihood of offering thrombolysis (perceived robustness of the evidence for thrombolysis; thrombolysing more patients in the past 12 months; and high discomfort with uncertainty) and one factor was predictive of a decreased likelihood of offering treatment (clinicians’ being comfortable treating patients outside the licensing criteria).

Limitations

We anticipated a sample size of 150–200. Nonetheless, the final sample of 138 is good considering that the total population of eligible UK clinicians is relatively small. Furthermore, data from the Royal College of Physicians suggest that our sample is representative of clinicians involved in decision-making about thrombolysis.

Conclusions

There was considerable heterogeneity among respondents in thrombolysis decision-making, indicating that clinicians differ in their thresholds for treatment across a number of patient-related factors. Respondents were significantly more likely to treat 85-year-old patients than patients aged 68 years and this probably reflects acceptance of data from Third International Stroke Trial that report benefit for patients aged > 80 years. That respondents were more likely to offer thrombolysis to patients with severe stroke than to patients with mild stroke may indicate uncertainty/concern about the risk/benefit balance in treatment of minor stroke. Findings will be disseminated via peer-review publication and presentation at national/international conferences, and will be linked to training/continuing professional development (CPD) programmes.

Future work

The nature of DCE design means that only a subset of potentially influential factors could be explored. Factors not explored in this study warrant future research. Training/CPD should address the impact of non-medical influences on decision-making using evidence-based strategies.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21)

BACKGROUND

There are longstanding recommendations to centralise specialist healthcare services, citing the potential to reduce variations in care and improve patient outcomes. Current activity to centralise specialist cancer surgical services in two areas of England provides an opportunity to study the planning, implementation and outcomes of such changes. London Cancer and Manchester Cancer are centralising specialist surgical pathways for prostate, bladder, renal, and oesophago-gastric cancers, so that these services are provided in fewer hospitals. The centralisations in London were implemented between November 2015 and April 2016, while implementation in Manchester is anticipated in 2017.

METHODS/DESIGN

This mixed methods evaluation will analyse stakeholder preferences for centralisations; it will use qualitative methods to analyse planning, implementation and sustainability of the centralisations ('how and why?'); and it will use a controlled before and after design to study the impact of centralisation on clinical processes, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and patient experience ('what works and at what cost?'). The study will use a framework developed in previous research on major system change in acute stroke services. A discrete choice experiment will examine patient, public and professional preferences for centralisations of this kind. Qualitative methods will include documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews and non-participant observations of meetings. Quantitative methods will include analysis of local and national data on clinical processes, outcomes, costs and National Cancer Patient Experience Survey data. Finally, we will hold a workshop for those involved in centralisations of specialist services in other settings to discuss how these lessons might apply more widely.

DISCUSSION

This multi-site study will address gaps in the evidence on stakeholder preferences for centralisations of specialist cancer surgery and the processes, impact and cost-effectiveness of changes of this kind. With increasing drives to centralise specialist services, lessons from this study will be of value to those who commission, organise and manage cancer services, as well as services for other conditions and in other settings. The study will face challenges in terms of recruitment, the retrospective analysis of some of the changes, the distinction between primary and secondary outcome measures, and obtaining information on the resources spent on the reconfiguration.

Patients' Preferences for Surgical Management of Esophageal Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Obtaining insight into patients' preferences is important to optimize cancer care. We investigated patients' preferences for surgical management of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment among adult patients who had undergone esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma or squamous cell cancer of the esophagus. Patients' preferences were quantified with regression analysis using scenarios based on five aspects: risk of in-hospital mortality, risk of persistent symptoms, chance of 5-year survival, risk of surgical and non-surgical complications, and hospital volume of esophageal cancer surgery.

RESULTS

The response rate was 68 % (104/142). All aspects proved to influence patients' preferences (p < 0.05). Persisting gastrointestinal symptoms and 5-year survival were the most important attributes, but preferences varied between patients. On average, patients were willing to trade-off 9.5 % (CI 2.4-16.6 %) 5-year survival chance to obtain a surgical treatment with 30 % lower risk of gastrointestinal symptoms, or 8.1 % (CI 4.0-12.2 %) 5-year survival chance for being treated in a high instead of a low-volume hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are willing to trade-off some 5-year survival chance to achieve an improvement in early outcomes. Given the preference heterogeneity among participants, the present study underlines the importance of a patient-tailored approach when discussing prognosis and treatment.

What surgeons tell patients and what patients want to know before major cancer surgery: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The information surgeons impart to patients and information patients want about surgery for cancer is important but rarely examined. This study explored information provided by surgeons and patient preferences for information in consultations in which surgery for oesophageal cancer surgery was discussed.

METHODS

Pre-operation consultations in which oesophagectomy was discussed were studied in three United Kingdom hospitals and patients were subsequently interviewed. Consultations and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed in full and anonymized. Interviews elicited views about the information provided by surgeons and patients' preferences for information. Thematic analysis of consultation-interview pairs was used to investigate similarities and differences in the information provided by surgeons and desired by patients.

RESULTS

Fifty two audio-recordings from 31 patients and 7 surgeons were obtained (25 consultations and 27 patient interviews). Six consultations were not recorded because of equipment failure and four patients declined an interview. Surgeons all provided consistent, extensive information on technical operative details and in-hospital surgical risks. Consultations rarely included discussion of the longer-term outcomes of surgery. Whilst patients accepted that information about surgery and risks was necessary, they really wanted details about long-term issues including recovery, impact on quality of life and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a need for surgeons to provide information of importance to patients concerning the longer term outcomes of surgery. It is proposed that "core information sets" are developed, based on surgeons' and patients' views, to use as a minimum in consultations to initiate discussion and meet information needs prior to cancer surgery.

Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

To examine the content and quality of written information provided by surgical centres for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of the content of National Health Service (NHS) patient information leaflets (PILs) about oesophageal cancer surgery, using a modified framework approach.

DATA SOURCES

Written information leaflets from 41 of 43 cancer centres undertaking surgery for oesophageal cancer in England and Wales (response rate 95.3%).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All English language versions of PILs about oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

32 different PILs were identified, of which 2 were generic tools (Macmillan 'understanding cancer of the gullet' and EIDO 'oesophagectomy'). Although most PILs focused on describing in-hospital adverse events, information varied widely and was often misleading. Just 1 leaflet described survival benefits of surgery and 2 mentioned the possibility of disease recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Written information provided for patients by NHS cancer centres undertaking oesophagectomy is inconsistent and incomplete. It is recommended that surgeons work together with patients to agree on standards of information provision of relevance to all stakeholders' needs.

Core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgeons provide patients with information before surgery, although standards of information are lacking and practice varies. The development and use of a 'core information set' as baseline information before surgery may improve understanding. A core set is a minimum set of information to use in all consultations before a specific procedure. This study developed a core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Information was identified from the literature, observations of clinical consultations and patient interviews. This was integrated to create a questionnaire survey. Stakeholders (patients and professionals) were surveyed twice to assess views on importance of information from 'not essential' to 'absolutely essential' using Delphi methods. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded after each survey and the final retained items were voted on, in separate patient and professional stakeholder meetings, to agree the core set.

RESULTS

Some 67 information items were identified initially from multiple sources. Survey response rates were 76·5 per cent (185 of 242) and 54·8 per cent (126 of 230) for patients and professionals respectively (first round), and over 83 per cent in both groups thereafter. Health professionals rated short-term clinical outcomes most highly (technical complications), whereas patients prioritized information related to long-term benefits. The consensus meetings agreed the final set, which consisted of: in-hospital milestones to recovery, rates of open-and-close surgery, in-hospital mortality, major complications (reoperation), milestones in recovery after discharge, longer-term eating and drinking and overall quality of life, and chances of survival.

CONCLUSION

This study has established a core information set for surgery for oesophageal cancer.

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.

METHODS

This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.

RESULTS

A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.

Outcomes reported in high-impact surgical journals

Background

With advances in operative technique and perioperative care, traditional endpoints such as morbidity and mortality provide an incomplete description of surgical outcomes. There is increasing emphasis on the need for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to evaluate fully the effectiveness and quality of surgical interventions. The objective of this study was to identify the outcomes reported in clinical studies published in high-impact surgical journals and the frequency with which PROs are used.

Methods

Electronic versions of material published between 2008 and 2012 in the four highest-impact non-subspecialty surgical journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery (BJS), Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Surgery) were hand-searched. Clinical studies of adult patients undergoing planned abdominal, thoracic or vascular surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified into five categories using Wilson and Cleary's conceptual model.

Results

A total of 893 articles were assessed, of which 770 were included in the analysis. Some 91·6 per cent of studies reported biological and physiological outcomes, 36·0 per cent symptoms, 13·4 per cent direct indicators of functional status, 10·6 per cent general health perception and 14·8 per cent overall quality of life (QoL). The proportion of studies with at least one PRO was 38·7 per cent overall and 73·4 per cent in BJS (P &lt; 0·001). The proportion of studies using a formal measure of health-related QoL ranged from 8·9 per cent (JAMA Surgery) to 33·8 per cent (BJS).

Conclusion

The predominant reporting of clinical endpoints and the inconsistent use of PROs underscore the need for further research and education to enhance the applicability of these measures in specific surgical settings.

Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?

Clinicians and public health experts make evidence-based decisions for individual patients, patient groups and even whole populations. In addition to the principles of internal and external validity (evidence), patient preferences must also influence decision making. Great Britain, Australia and Germany are currently discussing methods and procedures for valuing patient preferences in regulatory (authorization and pricing) and in health policy decision making. However, many questions remain on how to best balance patient and public preferences with physicians' judgement in healthcare and health policy decision making. For example, how to define evaluation criteria regarding the perceived value from a patient's perspective? How do physicians' fact-based opinions also reflect patients' preferences based on personal values? Can empirically grounded theories explain differences between patients and experts-and, if so, how? This article aims to identify and compare studies that used different preference elicitation methods and to highlight differences between patient and physician preferences. Therefore, studies comparing patient preferences and physician judgements were analysed in a review. This review shows a limited amount of literature analysing and comparing patient and physician preferences for healthcare interventions and outcomes. Moreover, it shows that methodology used to compare preferences is diverse. A total of 46 studies used the following methods-discrete-choice experiments, conjoint analyses, standard gamble, time trade-offs and paired comparisons-to compare patient preferences with doctor judgements. All studies were published between 1985 and 2011. Most studies reveal a disparity between the preferences of actual patients and those of physicians. For most conditions, physicians underestimated the impact of intervention characteristics on patients' decision making. Differentiated perceptions may reflect ineffective communication between the provider and the patient. This in turn may keep physicians from fully appreciating the impact of certain medical conditions on patient preferences. Because differences exist between physicians' judgement and patient preferences, it is important to incorporate the needs and wants of the patient into treatment decisions.

Weighting composite endpoints in clinical trials: essential evidence for the heart team

BACKGROUND

Coronary revascularization trials often use a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The usual practice in analyzing data with a composite endpoint is to assign equal weights to each of the individual MACCE elements. Noninferiority margins are used to offset effects of presumably less important components, but their magnitudes are subject to bias. This study describes the relative importance of MACCE elements from a patient perspective.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Survey respondents were presented with a scenario that would make them eligible for the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial three-vessel disease cohort. Respondents chose among pairs of procedures that differed on the 3-year probability of MACCE, potential for increased longevity, and procedure/recovery time. Conjoint analysis derived relative weights for these attributes.

RESULTS

In all, 224 respondents completed the survey. The attributes did not have equal weight. Risk of death was most important (relative weight 0.23), followed by stroke (0.18), potential increased longevity and recovery time (each 0.17), myocardial infarction (0.14), and risk of repeat revascularization (0.11). Applying these weights to the SYNTAX 3-year endpoints resulted in a persistent, but decreased margin of difference in MACCE favoring coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared to percutaneous coronary intervention. When labeled only as "procedure A" and "procedure B," 87% of respondents chose coronary artery bypass graft surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention. When procedures were labeled as "coronary stent" and "coronary bypass surgery," only 73% chose coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Procedural preference varied with demographics, sex, and familiarity with the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The MACCE elements do not carry equal weight in a composite endpoint, from a patient perspective. Using a weighted composite endpoint increases the validity of statistical analyses and trial conclusions. Patients are subject to bias by labels when considering coronary revascularization.

Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000-2011

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to provide a contemporary quantitative analysis of the existing literature examining the relationship between surgical caseload and outcome following esophageal resection.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched for trials comparing clinical outcome following esophagectomy from high- and low-volume hospitals since 2000. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

Nine appropriate publications comprising 27,843 esophagectomy operations were included, 12,130 and 15,713 operations were performed in low- and high-volume surgical units, respectively. Esophagectomy at low-volume hospitals was associated with a significant increase in incidence of in-hospital (8.48% vs. 2.82%; pooled odds ratio (POR) = 0.29; P < 0.0001) and 30-day mortality (2.09% vs. 0.73%; POR = 0.31; P < 0.0001). There was insufficient data for conclusive statistical analysis of length of hospital stay or post-operative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis does suggest a benefit in the centralization of esophageal cancer surgery to high-volume institutions with respect to mortality. The outcomes of this study are of interest to patients, healthcare providers and payers, particularly regarding service reconfiguration and more specifically centralization of services. Future studies that look at long-term survival will help improve understanding of any late consequences such as survival and quality of life following esophageal surgery at low- and high-volume hospitals.

Quality of life after esophagectomy for cancer

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive and physically and emotionally devastating disease. It has one of the poorest survival rates among all malignant tumors, mainly due to late symptom presentation and early metastatic dissemination. Cure is possible through extensive surgery, typically followed by a long recovery period, affecting general well-being, as well as basic aspects of life, such as eating, drinking and socializing. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a multidimensional concept assessing symptoms and functions related to a disease or its treatment from the patient's perspective. HRQL is a fundamental part of treatment in surgical oncology, particularly in esophageal cancer. This review assesses the scientific data regarding some HRQL aspects after esophageal cancer surgery, for example, postoperative recovery time, determinants of postoperative HRQL and long-term HRQL.