No abstract

Active surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we gained insight in patients' motive to opt for either an experimental treatment called active surveillance or for standard immediate surgery. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses methods were used. Forty patients were interviewed about their treatment preference, 3 months after completion of nCRT (T1). Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. In addition, at T1 and T2 (12 months after completion of nCRT) questionnaires on health-related quality of life, coping, anxiety and decisional regret (only T2) were administered. Interview data analyses resulted in a conceptual model with 'dealing with threat of cancer' as the central theme. Patients preferring active surveillance tend to cope with this threat by confiding in their bodies and good outcomes. Their mind-set is one of 'enjoy life now'. Patients preferring surgery tend to cope by minimizing uncertainty and eliminating the source of cancer.Their mind-set is one of 'don't give up, act now'. Furthermore, questionnaire results showed that patients with a preference for standard surgery had a lower quality of life. Patient preferences are individualized and thus difficult to predict. Our model can help healthcare professionals to determine patient preferences for treatment.Coping style and mind-set seem to be determining factors here.

No abstract

The need for standard surgical resection in esophageal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is subject of debate. Possibly, active surveillance (AS) is an option for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR), in whom no vital tumor cells are detected after nCRT. In a large Dutch multicenter randomized trial (SANO trial), standard surgery is compared to AS in patients with a cCR. Within this trial, we performed a side-study on patient treatment preferences. Methods Esophageal cancer patients, who declined participation in the SANO-trial due to a strong treatment preference for either AS or surgery were included. In-depth interviews were held on patient’s motives for their treatment choice. First, personal motives were addressed in an open manner, and later specific topics were addressed: earlier experiences with illness and health care, future health expectations, emotional motives, religious or spiritual believes and values in life. Data was recorded, transcribed verbatim and qualitatively analyzed according to the grounded theory principles. In addition, questionnaires on health literacy, coping, anxiety and decision regret were administered at two time points. Results Forty patients participated: twenty preferred AS and twenty standard surgery. The central principle for all patients is striving for safety while dealing with the threat of cancer. However, patients express different coping strategies in dealing with this threat. Patients preferring AS rely on trusting their bodies and good outcomes, while questioning the need for surgery. Patients preferring surgery try to minimize insecurity by eliminating the source of the cancer, while arguing that chances for undergoing surgery are high anyway. Interestingly, for either treatment option comparable arguments were used, with the most striking one of wishing ‘not to become a patient’. Conclusion Patients’ preferences in the treatment of esophageal cancer are determined by the way they cope with the threat of cancer. Since the arguments given for either AS or standard surgery can be comparable or even similar, the need for healthcare professionals to discuss what truly matters to their patients is of high importance. Subsequently, attuning to the personal needs of esophageal cancer patients will benefit the decision making process on future treatment.

BackgroundThis study explores patients’ need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible.MethodsThis psychological companion study was conducted alongside the Dutch SANO‐trial (Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer). In‐depth interviews and questionnaires were used to collect data from patients who declined participation in the trial because they had a strong preference for either active surveillance (n = 20) or standard surgery (n = 20). Data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative techniques.ResultsPatients prefer to receive information directly from their doctors and predominantly rely on this information to make a treatment decision. Other information resources are largely used to confirm their treatment decision. Patients highly value support from their loved ones and appreciate emphatic doctors to actively involve them in the decision‐making process. Overall, patients’ needs for information and support during decision‐making were met.ConclusionsThe importance of shared decision‐making and the role doctors have in this process is underlined. The role of doctors is essential at the initial phase of decision‐making: Once patients seem to have formed their treatment preference for either active surveillance or surgery, the influence of external resources (including doctors) may be limited.

No abstract

Highlights Complete gross resection as part of debulking surgery is crucial in advanced ovarian cancer. Supradiaphragmatic lymph node resection may prolong survival in patients with ovarian cancer. We report acute pericarditis after supradiaphragmatic lymph node resection and pericardotomy.