Patient-Reported Roles, Preferences, and Expectations Regarding Treatment of Stage I Rectal Cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium

Radical versus Local Surgical Excision for Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Radical excision (RE) for rectal cancer carries a higher risk of mortality and morbidity, while local excision (LE) could decrease these postoperative risks. However, the long-term benefit of LE is still debatable.

Aim

To study the effectiveness of LE versus RE in T1 and T2 rectal cancer.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using key databases like PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included. RevMan 5.4 tool was used for data analysis. Both clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the studies were assessed, and I2 >75% was considered as highly heterogeneous. The primary outcomes being measured were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease free survival (DFS). A subgroup analysis of patients with T1-only was also conducted, without adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy.

Results

A total of 18 studies were included for final meta-analysis. Four were RCTs, while the other 15 were retrospective cohort studies. One included study had data from both RCT and non-RCT study groups. Nine studies were multicentered or national studies while nine were unicentral.There was no difference in risk ratio (RR) between OS: RR 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.91, 0.99] and DFS: RR 0.93, 95% CI [0.87, 1.01]. There were lower hazards ratios in OS: RR 1.41, 95% CI [1.14, 1.74] and DFS: RR 1.95, 95% CI [1.36, 2.78] with radical, as compared to LE. Lower recurrence rate was associated with RE. Random effect model was used due to clinical heterogeneity between studies (different surgical procedures, tumor staging, adjuvant chemo or radiotherapy).

Conclusions

LE for early-stage rectal cancer has lower 5-year OS and DFS than RE, with higher local recurrence rate. However, LE is associated with lower early postoperative mortality, morbidity and length of stay as compared to RE.

Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights.

RESULTS

Patients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Patients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy.

How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.

INFORMATION SOURCES

COCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

Patients' preferences for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery for low rectal cancer can be associated with severe bowel dysfunction and impaired quality of life. It is important to determine how patients value the trade-off between anorectal dysfunction versus abdominoperineal resection. Therefore, the objective was to determine patients' preferences for treatment for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Ambulatory patients without colorectal cancer at a single high-volume academic colorectal referral center from September 2019 to March 2020 were included. Patients with prior stoma or malignancy were excluded. Participants were presented with a hypothetic scenario describing a low rectal cancer. A threshold task identified preferences for functional and oncologic outcomes for sphincter preservation versus abdominoperineal resection.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were recruited. Patients preferred abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation if there were more than a mean of 6.7 (standard deviation 4.0) daily bowel movements, 1.9 (standard deviation 2.6) daily episodes of stool incontinence, and 6.5 (standard deviation 3.2) gas incontinence. Abdominoperineal resection was preferred over sphincter preservation in 38% if daily activities were altered owing to fecal urgency. Patients were willing to accept a 10% (interquartile range, 5-25) absolute increase in risk of margin involvement with sphincter preservation to avoid abdominoperineal resection. Abdominoperineal resection was the preferred option overall for 18% of patients.

CONCLUSION

An important proportion of patients would prefer abdominoperineal resection over sphincter preservation owing to the impairments in anorectal function associated with sphincter preservation. The decision to perform sphincter preservation or abdominoperineal resection should consider how the patients' value functional outcomes with a low anastomosis.

Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

BACKGROUND

Many suggest that shared decision-making (SDM) is the most effective approach to clinical counseling. It is unclear if this applies to surgical decision-making-especially regarding urgent, highly-morbid operations. In this scoping review, we identify articles that address patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery.

METHODS

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop our protocol. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through 11.2017. Title/abstract review identified peer-reviewed, empirical articles that addressed patient/surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery. Identified articles underwent full review by two independent investigators. We addressed the following questions: (1) What is known from existing empirical evidence about patients' and/or surgeons' surgical decision-making preferences? (2) Why might patients and/or surgeons prefer SDM? (3) Does acuity of intervention impact surgical decision-making preferences? Outcome measures included study methods, surgical specialty, diagnosis, study location/setting, type/number of subjects, acuity of intervention, surgeon/patient decision-making preferences, and factors associated with favoring SDM. Data was analyzed in Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

20,359 articles were identified with 4988 duplicates, yielding 15,371 articles for title/abstract review. 74 articles were included in final analysis. 68% of articles discussed oncologic decision-making. 46% of these focused on breast cancer. 92% of articles included patients, 22% included surgeons. 75% of articles found surgeons favored SDM, 25% demonstrated surgeons favored surgeon guidance. 54% of articles demonstrated patients favored SDM, 35% showed patients favored surgeon guidance, 11% showed patients preferred independent decision-making. The most common factors for patients favoring SDM included female gender, higher education, and younger age. For surgeons, the most common factors for favoring SDM included limited evidence for a given treatment plan, multiple treatment options, and impact on patient lifestyle. No articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been limited evaluation of patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgical decision-making. Generally, patients and surgeons expressed preference toward SDM. None of the articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting, so assessment of the impact of acuity on decision-making preferences is limited. Extension of research to complex, emergent clinical settings is needed.

Current Status of the Management of Stage I Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current available treatments for stage I rectal cancer and the evidence that supports them.

RECENT FINDINGS

Radical surgery, or total mesorectal excision (TME) without neoadjuvant therapy, reports excellent oncologic outcomes, with 5-year disease-free survival of approximately 95%. Alternative therapies include local excision, which has acceptable long-term outcomes in some low-risk T1 tumors; but overall local excision, with or without additional chemotherapy or radiation, generally reports 5-year disease-free survival less than TME alone. New research is showing complete clinical response rates of 67% with chemoradiation combined with additional consolidation chemotherapy in T2 lesions, making watch and wait a potential strategy for stage I tumors. Owing to its superior oncologic outcomes, radical surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for stage I tumors. Both local excision and watch and wait have advantages that may make them useful in individual patients and should be considered under the right circumstances.

A cohort study of local excision followed by adjuvant therapy incorporating a contact X-ray brachytherapy boost instead of radical resection in 180 patients with rectal cancer

AIM

Recent data have suggested near-equivalent oncological results when treating early rectal cancer by local excision followed by radio- ± chemotherapy rather than salvage radical surgery. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the use of contact X-ray brachytherapy within this paradigm.

METHOD

All patients had undergone local excision and were referred to our radiotherapy centre for treatment with contact X-ray brachytherapy. Postoperative (chemo)radiotherapy was also given in their local hospital in most cases. Variables assessed were local excision method, postoperative therapy received, follow-up duration, disease-free survival, salvage surgery and stoma-free survival.

RESULTS

In total, 180 patients with a median age of 70 (range 36-99) years were assessed. Following local excision, pT stages were pT1 = 131 (72%), pT2 = 44 (26%), pT3 = 5 (2%). All patients received contact X-ray brachytherapy boosting at our centre and, in addition, 110 received chemoradiotherapy and 60 received radiotherapy alone. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range 6-48), 169 patients (94%) remained free of local recurrence. Of the 11 patients with local recurrence (three isolated nodal), five underwent salvage abdominoperineal excision. Eight patients developed distant disease, of whom five underwent metastasis surgery. At last included follow-up 173 (96%) patients were free of all disease and 170 (94%) were stoma free.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact therapy can be offered in addition to external beam radio (±chemo) therapy instead of radical surgery as follow-on treatment after local excision of early rectal cancer. This combination can provide equivalent outcomes to radical surgery. The added value of contact therapy should be formally assessed in a clinical trial.

Utility Scores and Preferences for Surgical and Organ-Sparing Approaches for Treatment of Intermediate and High-Risk Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Organ-sparing approaches, including wait-and-see and local excision, are increasingly being offered to patients with rectal cancer following a good response to neoadjuvant therapy. Preferences regarding these treatment strategies are yet unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the preferences and utility scores for rectal cancer treatment approaches.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at the Radiation-Oncology Department of the University Medical Center Utrecht.

PATIENTS

Fifty-seven patients with a history of rectal cancer and 38 volunteers were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants assessed 6 hypothetical treatment-outcome scenarios, including short-course radiotherapy or chemoradiation followed by abdominoperineal resection, low anterior resection, local excision, or a wait-and-see approach. The hierarchy in preferences between scenarios was assessed by using ranking. Utilities were estimated with a visual analog scale and time trade-off.

RESULTS

Organ-sparing approaches were ranked as the first preferred treatment option by 51% of the participants. Among all scenarios, wait-and-see was most often ranked highest by patients and volunteers (36% and 50%). Meanwhile, a substantial proportion ranked wait-and-see as their lowest preference (38% in patients and 35% in volunteers). Utility scores differed significantly between scenarios. Wait-and-see received a significantly higher score on the visual analog scale than the scenarios including abdominoperineal resection and the scenario including chemoradiation with low anterior resection, and a score similar to the scenarios including local excision and short-course radiotherapy with low anterior resection.

LIMITATIONS

The study population consisted of patients with a history of rectal cancer treatment and volunteers related to patients. This may have influenced preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that there is a wide disparity in preferences concerning organ-sparing approaches for rectal cancer in both patients with a history of rectal cancer and volunteers. Wait-and-see is often the highest preferred treatment, but it is also among the least preferred treatment options. These findings give insights into how patients may value the current rectal cancer treatment options. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A521.

Training surgeons in shared decision-making with cancer patients aged 65 years and older: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Treatment decision-making in older patients with colorectal (CRC) or pancreatic cancer (PC) needs improvement. We introduced the EASYcare in Geriatric Onco-surgery (EASY-GO) intervention to optimize the shared decision-making (SDM) process among these patients.

METHODS

The EASY-GO intervention comprised a working method with geriatric assessment and SDM training for surgeons. A non-equivalent control group design was used. Newly diagnosed CRC/PC patients aged ≥65 years were included. Primary patient-reported experiences were the quality of SDM (SDM-Q-9, range 0-100), involvement in decision-making (Visual Analog Scale for Involvement in the decision-making process [range 0-10]), satisfaction about decision-making (Visual Analog Scale for Satisfaction concerning the decision-making process [range 0-10]), and decisional regret (Decisional Regret Scale [DRS], range 0-100). Only for DRS, lower scores are better.

RESULTS

A total of 71.4% of the involved consultants and 42.9% of the involved residents participated in the EASY-GO training. Only 4 trained surgeons consulted patients both before (n=19) and after (n=19) training and were consequently included in the analyses. All patient-reported experience measures showed a consistent but non-significant change in the direction of improved decision-making after training. According to surgeons, decisions were significantly more often made together with the patient after training (before, 38.9% vs after, 73.7%, p=0.04). Sub-analyses per diagnosis showed that patient experiences among older PC patients consistent and clinically relevant changed in the direction of improved decision-making after training (SDM-Q-9 +13.4 [95% CI -7.9; 34.6], VAS-I +0.27 [95% CI -1.1; 1.6], VAS-S +0.88 [95% CI -0.5; 2.2], DRS -10.3 [95% CI -27.8; 7.1]).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study strengthens the practical potential of the intervention's concept among older surgical cancer patients.