Decision aids for shared decision-making in Barrett's esophagus surveillance

Needs, preferences, and patient participation for a randomized controlled trial on postneoadjuvant complete tumor response: A qualitative study of patients with esophageal cancer

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.

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).

Shared Decision Making in Gastroenterology: Challenges and Opportunities

This article reviews the current uses of shared decision making in gastroenterology and discusses additional areas of opportunity for shared decision making, especially in the area of functional gastrointestinal disorders. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for articles published during a 10-year period from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2017. Search terms included shared decision making and gastroenterology, shared decision making in gastrointestinal disease, shared decision making in functional GI disorders, and shared decision making and irritable bowel syndrome. Studies were not included in this review when a health care professional other than a gastroenterologist was involved, eg, an article that reported shared decision making regarding the use of radiation therapy in a patient with advanced rectal cancer in which the health care professional helping to make the decision was an oncologist.

Patient perception and preference of EUS-guided drainage over percutaneous drainage when endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage fails: An international multicenter survey

Background and Objectives:

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a feasible procedure when ERCP fails, as is percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). However, little is known about patient perception and preference of EUS-BD and PTBD.

Patients and Methods:

An international multicenter survey was conducted in seven tertiary referral centers. In total, 327 patients, scheduled to undergo ERCP for suspected malignant biliary obstruction, were enrolled in the study. Patients received decision aids with visual representation regarding the techniques, benefits, and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients were then asked the choice between the two simulated scenarios (EUS-BD or PTBD) after failed ERCP, the reasons for their preference, and whether altering AE rates would influence their prior choice.

Results:

In total, 313 patients (95.7%) responded to the questionnaire and 251 patients (80.2%) preferred EUS-BD. The preference of EUS-BD was 85.7% (186/217) with EUS-BD expertise, compared to 67.7% (65/96) without EUS-BD expertise (P < 0.001). The main reason for choosing EUS-BD was the possibility of internal drainage (78.1%). In multivariate analysis, the availability of EUS-BD expertise was the single independent factor that influenced patient preference (odds ratio: 3.168; 95% of confidence interval, 1.714–5.856; P < 0.001). The preference of EUS-BD increased as AE rates decreased (P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

In this simulated scenario, approximately 80% of patients preferred EUS-BD over PTBD after failed ERCP. However, preference of EUS-BD declined as its AE rates increased. Further technical innovations and improved proficiency in EUS-BD for reducing AEs may encourage the use of this procedure as a routine clinical practice when ERCP fails.

Surveillance endoscopy is associated with improved outcomes of oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected in patients with Barrett's oesophagus

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of surveillance endoscopy in patients with Barrett's oesophagus (BE) for reducing oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)-related mortality in patients with BE is unclear.

METHODS

This is a cohort study of patients with BE diagnosed in the National Veterans Affairs hospitals during 2004-2009 excluding those with conditions that affect overall survival. We identified those diagnosed with EAC after BE diagnosis through 2011 and conducted chart reviews to identify BE surveillance programme, and indication for EAC diagnosis, verify diagnosis, stage, therapy and cause of death. We examined the association between surveillance indication for EAC diagnosis with or without surveillance programme and EAC stage and treatment receipt in logistic regression models, and with time to death or cancer-related death using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

Among 29 536 patients with BE, 424 patients developed EAC during a mean follow-up of 5.0 years. A total of 209 (49.3%) patients with EAC were in BE surveillance programme and were diagnosed as a result of surveillance endoscopy. These patients were more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage (stage 0 or 1: 74.7% vs 56.2, p<0.001), survived longer (median 3.2 vs 2.3 years; p<0.001) and have lower cancer-related mortality (34.0% vs 54.0%, p<0.0001) and had a trend to receive oesophagectomy (51.2% vs 42.3%; p=0.07) than 215 patients diagnosed by non-BE surveillance endoscopy (17.2% of whom were BE surveillance failure). BE surveillance endoscopy was associated with a decreased risk of cancer-related death (HR 0.47, 0.35 to 0.64), which was largely explained by the early stage of EAC at the time of diagnosis. Similarly, the adjusted mortality for patients with cancer in a prior surveillance programme for overall death was 0.63 (0.47 to 0.84) compared with patients with cancer not in a surveillance programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance endoscopy among patients with BE is associated with significantly better EAC outcomes including cancer-related mortality compared with other non-surveillance endoscopy.

Qualitative analysis of patient-centered decision attributes associated with initiating hepatitis C treatment

BACKGROUND

In this era of a constantly changing landscape of antiviral treatment options for chronic viral hepatitis C (CHC), shared clinical decision-making addresses the need to engage patients in complex treatment decisions. However, little is known about the decision attributes that CHC patients consider when making treatment decisions. We identify key patient-centered decision attributes, and explore relationships among these attributes, to help inform the development of a future CHC shared decision-making aid.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews with CHC patients at four Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals, in three comparison groups: contemplating CHC treatment at the time of data collection (Group 1), recently declined CHC treatment (Group 2), or recently started CHC treatment (Group 3). Participant descriptions of decision attributes were analyzed for the entire sample as well as by patient group and by gender.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine Veteran patients participated (21 males, eight females): 12 were contemplating treatment, nine had recently declined treatment, and eight had recently started treatment. Patients on average described eight (range 5-13) decision attributes. The attributes most frequently reported overall were: physical side effects (83%); treatment efficacy (79%), new treatment drugs in development (55%); psychological side effects (55%); and condition of the liver (52%), with some variation based on group and gender. Personal life circumstance attributes (such as availability of family support and the burden of financial responsibilities) influencing treatment decisions were also noted by all participants. Multiple decision attributes were interrelated in highly complex ways.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants considered numerous attributes in their CHC treatment decisions. A better understanding of these attributes that influence patient decision-making is crucial in order to inform patient-centered clinical approaches to care (such as shared decision-making augmented with relevant decision-making aids) that respond to patients' needs, preferences, and circumstances.