Literature DB >> 18427027

Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer.

James D Harrison1, Michael J Solomon, Jane M Young, Alan Meagher, Phyllis Butow, Glenn Salkeld, George Hruby, Stephen Clarke.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Patients and their clinicians hold varying preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment therapies for rectal cancer.
DESIGN: Preferences were determined using the Prospective Measure of Preference.
SETTING: Royal Prince Alfred and St Vincent's hospitals in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with colorectal cancer were interviewed during their postoperative hospital stay, and physicians were asked to complete a mailed survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Prospective Measure of Preference method produces 2 outcome measures of preference: willingness to trade and prospective measure of preference time trade-off.
RESULTS: Patients' strongest preference was to avoid a stoma: more than 60% would give up a mean of 34% of their life expectancy to avoid this surgical option. This was followed by treatment options involving chemoradiotherapy, where more than 50% would give up a mean of almost 25% of their life to avoid treatment. Surgeons held stronger preferences against all adjuvant options compared with oncologists (P </= .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients had strong preferences against all treatment options, and these preferences frequently differed from those of physicians. These results highlight the importance of determining patients' own preferences in the clinical encounter. Furthermore, the diversity of preferences of clinical subspecialists emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary treatment planning to ensure a balanced approach to treatment decision making for patients with rectal cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18427027     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.143.4.389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  22 in total

1.  Proximity to disease and perception of utility: physicians' vs patients' assessment of treatment options for ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Lindsay Kennedy Brown; Akbar K Waljee; Peter D R Higgins; Jennifer F Waljee; Arden M Morris
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.585

2.  Health State Utility Values for Ileostomies and Colostomies: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fahima Dossa; Jonathan Josse; Sergio A Acuna; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  How Do Spinal Surgeons Perceive The Impact of Factors Used in Post-Surgical Complication Risk Scores?

Authors:  Enea Parimbelli; Wilk Szymon; Dympna O'Sullivan; Stephen Kingwell; Wojtek Michalowski; Martin Michalowski
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2020-03-04

Review 4.  Sphincter preservation for distal rectal cancer--a goal worth achieving at all costs?

Authors:  Jürgen Mulsow; Des C Winter
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  'Watch and wait' in rectal cancer: summary of the current evidence.

Authors:  Jason On; Emad H Aly
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Prospective evaluation of bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Yolanda Ribas; Montse Martín-Baranera; Ladislao Cayetano; Carles Maristany; Josep Bargalló; Salvadora Delgado; Arantxa Muñoz-Duyos
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Ranked importance of outcomes of first-line versus repeated chemotherapy among ovarian cancer patients.

Authors:  Vanessa L Beesley; Alexandra M Clavarino; Penelope M Webb; David K Wyld; Alessandra B Francesconi; Keith R Horwood; James D Doecke; Colleen A Loos; Adele C Green
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-09-24       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Is Chemotherapy or Radiation Therapy in Addition to Surgery Beneficial for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the Elderly? A National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) Study.

Authors:  J R Bergquist; C A Thiels; C R Shubert; E B Habermann; A V Hayman; M D Zielinski; K L Mathis
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Why don't women participate? A qualitative study on non-participation in a surgical randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  D Gopinath; A R B Smith; C Holland; F M Reid
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Safety and Feasibility of Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Criteria to Identify Patients With "Good Prognosis" Rectal Cancer Eligible for Primary Surgery: The Phase 2 Nonrandomized QuickSilver Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Erin D Kennedy; Marko Simunovic; Kartik Jhaveri; Richard Kirsch; Jim Brierley; Sébastien Drolet; Carl Brown; Patrick M Vos; Wei Xiong; Tony MacLean; Selliah Kanthan; Peter Stotland; Simon Raphael; Gil Chow; Catherine A O'Brien; Charles Cho; Cathy Streutker; Raimond Wong; Selina Schmocker; Sender Liberman; Caroline Reinhold; Neil Kopek; Victoria Marcus; Alexandre Bouchard; Caroline Lavoie; Stanislas Morin; Martine Périgny; Ann Wright; Katerina Neumann; Sharon Clarke; Nikhilesh G Patil; Thomas Arnason; Lara Williams; Robin McLeod; Gina Brown; Alex Mathieson; Amandeep Pooni; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 31.777

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.