Treatment Preferences for Routine Lymphadenectomy Versus No Lymphadenectomy in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer

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.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Minimally Invasive Surgical Outcomes in Advanced Gastric Cancer: An International Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

No international consensus on the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) exists. In the absence of well-designed, comparative studies between neoadjuvant versus adjuvant strategies, concerns about increased risk of postoperative complications remain barriers to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for AGC. We evaluated surgical outcomes of AGC patients who received minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy after NAC.

METHODS

We collected data from two high-volume gastric cancer programs in the United States and China between January 2015 and December 2019 with the last follow-up in February 2020. AGC patients undergoing minimally invasive radical surgery were included. After propensity score-matching, surgical outcomes were analyzed. Risk-factor of complications was analyzed in the whole cohort.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score-matching, 97 patients were included in each cohort. NAC + surgery cohort was younger (58.2 ± 10.3 vs. 61.3 ± 9.6, P = 0.036) with lower preoperative WBC count (5.7 ± 2.8 vs. 6.9 ± 2.1 × 10⁹/ml) than the surgery upfront cohort. NAC was not a risk-factor for postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.859; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-1.60; P = 0.633). Overall risk-factors of postoperative complications included age ≥ 60 years (OR, 21.338; 95% CI, 5.00-91.05; P < 0.001), tumor size ≥ 5 cm (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.83; P < 0.001), operation time ≥ 240 min (OR, 5.53; 95% CI, 1.26-24.26; P = 0.012), and ASA classification ≥ II (OR, 13.14; 95% CI, 4.12-24.73; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

NAC before minimally invasive radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy does not increase postoperative complications, and these findings support broader application of NAC and MIS for AGC. Additional studies are required to determine the effect of NAC on long-term survival.

Patients' and gynecologists' views on sentinel lymph node mapping in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer: a Dutch vignette study

OBJECTIVE

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping in endometrial cancer is gaining ground. However, patient views on this new technique are unknown. The aim of this study was to determine factors important to patients and gynecologists when considering SLN mapping in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We performed a vignette study. Patients who underwent a total hysterectomy for low- or intermediate-risk endometrial cancer between 2012 and 2015 were invited. Dutch gynecologists specializing in gynecologic oncology were also invited. We based the selection for attributes in the vignettes on literature and interviews: risk of complications of SLN mapping; chance of finding a metastasis; survival gain; risk of complications after radiotherapy; operation time; and hospital of surgery (travel time). We developed a questionnaire with 18 hypothetical scenarios. Each attribute level varied and for each scenario, participants were asked how strongly they would prefer SLN on a scale from 1 to 7. The strength of preference for each scenario was analyzed using linear mixed effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 38% of patients (41/108) and 33% of gynecologists (42/126) participated in the study. Overall, they had a preference for SLN. The mean preference for patients was 4.29 (95% CI 3.72 to 4.85) and 4.39 (95% CI 3.99 to 4.78) for gynecologists. Patients' preferences increased from 3.4 in the case of no survival gain to 4.9 in the case of 3-year survival gain (P<0.05) and it decreased when travel time increased to >60 min (-0.4, P=0.024), or with an increased risk of complications after adjuvant radiotherapy (-0.6, P=0.002). For gynecologists all attributes except travel time were important.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients and gynecologists were in favor of SLN mapping in low- and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer. Most important to patients were survival gain, travel time, and complication risk after adjuvant radiotherapy. These preferences should be taken into account when counseling about SLN mapping.

Role of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and histological assessment in identifying patients with a low risk of endometrial cancer: a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary study

Preoperative identification of individuals at low risk of lymph node metastasis is key to the proper management of endometrial cancer. This study evaluated the role of preoperative assessment based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and histological analysis in identifying a group having a low risk of lymph node metastasis. Data of 529 patients with endometrial cancer were obtained from a prospective multicenter database, between January 2012 and December 2014. Clinical staging, based on MRI and histological analysis, was compared with final pathology results after the surgical staging procedure. The preoperative low-risk criteria, based on current guidelines from Korea, France, and Canada, and criteria used for fertility-sparing therapies, were applied to our multicenter cohort and the accuracy of each set of criteria for identifying group at low risk of lymph node metastasis was evaluated. When considering grades or MR stages separately, the overall agreement between preoperative and postoperative findings was poor (Kappa 0.45 for grades; 0.41 for stages). However, when combining these two parameters, the low-risk group, as defined by any of the guidelines, had an acceptable rate of lymph node metastasis (below 3%). The French guidelines identified 249 patients (47.1%) as being in the low-risk group. Criteria used to define fertility-sparing therapy candidates identified 48 patients (9.1%) among the study population, only one of whom had extra-uterine disease. This study shows that the current guidelines, using preoperative assessment based on MRI and histological analysis, can identify low-risk patients, who may be candidates for omitting lymphadenectomy.