T1 大肠癌患者对局部切除术后信息提供和治疗决策的看法。

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY United European Gastroenterology Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1002/ueg2.12628
Nik Dekkers, Hao Dang, Manon de Graaf, Kate Nobbenhuis, Daan A Verhoeven, Jolein van der Kraan, Wouter H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel, Alaa Alkhalaf, Henderik L van Westreenen, Kirill Basiliya, Koen C M J Peeters, Marinke Westerterp, Pascal G Doornebosch, James C H Hardwick, Alexandra M J Langers, Jurjen J Boonstra
{"title":"T1 大肠癌患者对局部切除术后信息提供和治疗决策的看法。","authors":"Nik Dekkers, Hao Dang, Manon de Graaf, Kate Nobbenhuis, Daan A Verhoeven, Jolein van der Kraan, Wouter H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel, Alaa Alkhalaf, Henderik L van Westreenen, Kirill Basiliya, Koen C M J Peeters, Marinke Westerterp, Pascal G Doornebosch, James C H Hardwick, Alexandra M J Langers, Jurjen J Boonstra","doi":"10.1002/ueg2.12628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decision-making after local resection of T1 colorectal cancer (T1CRC) is often complex and calls for optimal information provision as well as active patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim was to evaluate the perceptions of patients with T1CRC on information provision and therapeutic decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter cross-sectional study included patients who underwent endoscopic or local surgical resection as initial treatment. Information provision was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire. In patients with high-risk T1CRC, we evaluated decisional involvement and satisfaction regarding the choice as to whether to undergo additional treatment after local resection, and the level of decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-eight patients with T1CRC were included (72% response rate; 79/98 endoscopic and 19/98 local surgical resection; 45/98 high-risk T1CRC). Median time since local resection was 28 months (IQR 18); none had developed recurrence. Unmet information needs were reported by 29 patients (30%; 18 low-risk, 11 high-risk), mostly on post-treatment related topics (follow-up visits, recovery time, recurrence prevention). After local resection, 24 of the 45 high-risk patients (53%) underwent additional treatment, while others were subjected to surveillance. Higher-educated patients were more often actively involved in decision-making (93% vs. 43%, p = 0.002) and more frequently underwent additional treatment (79% vs. 40%, p = 0.02). Decisional conflict (p = 0.19) and satisfaction (p = 0.78) were comparable between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Greater attention should be given to the post-treatment course during consultations following local T1CRC resection. The differences in decisional involvement and selected management strategies between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients warrant further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":23444,"journal":{"name":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"T1 colorectal cancer patients' perspective on information provision and therapeutic decision-making after local resection.\",\"authors\":\"Nik Dekkers, Hao Dang, Manon de Graaf, Kate Nobbenhuis, Daan A Verhoeven, Jolein van der Kraan, Wouter H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel, Alaa Alkhalaf, Henderik L van Westreenen, Kirill Basiliya, Koen C M J Peeters, Marinke Westerterp, Pascal G Doornebosch, James C H Hardwick, Alexandra M J Langers, Jurjen J Boonstra\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ueg2.12628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decision-making after local resection of T1 colorectal cancer (T1CRC) is often complex and calls for optimal information provision as well as active patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim was to evaluate the perceptions of patients with T1CRC on information provision and therapeutic decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter cross-sectional study included patients who underwent endoscopic or local surgical resection as initial treatment. Information provision was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire. In patients with high-risk T1CRC, we evaluated decisional involvement and satisfaction regarding the choice as to whether to undergo additional treatment after local resection, and the level of decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-eight patients with T1CRC were included (72% response rate; 79/98 endoscopic and 19/98 local surgical resection; 45/98 high-risk T1CRC). Median time since local resection was 28 months (IQR 18); none had developed recurrence. Unmet information needs were reported by 29 patients (30%; 18 low-risk, 11 high-risk), mostly on post-treatment related topics (follow-up visits, recovery time, recurrence prevention). After local resection, 24 of the 45 high-risk patients (53%) underwent additional treatment, while others were subjected to surveillance. Higher-educated patients were more often actively involved in decision-making (93% vs. 43%, p = 0.002) and more frequently underwent additional treatment (79% vs. 40%, p = 0.02). Decisional conflict (p = 0.19) and satisfaction (p = 0.78) were comparable between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Greater attention should be given to the post-treatment course during consultations following local T1CRC resection. The differences in decisional involvement and selected management strategies between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients warrant further investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"United European Gastroenterology Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"United European Gastroenterology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12628\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12628","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:T1结直肠癌(T1CRC)局部切除术后的决策通常比较复杂,需要提供最佳信息并让患者积极参与:目的:评估 T1CRC 患者对信息提供和治疗决策的看法:这项多中心横断面研究纳入了接受内镜或局部手术切除作为初始治疗的患者。采用 EORTC QLQ-INFO25 问卷对信息提供情况进行评估。在高风险 T1CRC 患者中,我们使用决策冲突量表(Decisional Conflict Scale)评估了患者在选择局部切除后是否接受其他治疗时的决策参与度和满意度,以及决策冲突的程度:共纳入98例T1CRC患者(应答率为72%;79/98例接受了内镜手术切除,19/98例接受了局部手术切除;45/98例为高危T1CRC)。局部切除术后的中位时间为 28 个月(IQR 18);无一例复发。有 29 名患者(30%;18 名低危,11 名高危)报告了未满足的信息需求,主要是与治疗后相关的主题(随访、恢复时间、预防复发)。局部切除术后,45 名高风险患者中有 24 人(53%)接受了额外治疗,其他人则接受了监测。受教育程度较高的患者更常积极参与决策(93% 对 43%,p = 0.002),也更常接受额外治疗(79% 对 40%,p = 0.02)。受教育程度较高和较低的高危患者之间的决策冲突(p = 0.19)和满意度(p = 0.78)相当:结论:在T1CRC局部切除术后的会诊中,应更加关注治疗后的过程。结论:在T1CRC局部切除术后的会诊中,应更多地关注治疗后的过程。高学历和低学历高危患者在决策参与和所选管理策略方面的差异值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
T1 colorectal cancer patients' perspective on information provision and therapeutic decision-making after local resection.

Background: Decision-making after local resection of T1 colorectal cancer (T1CRC) is often complex and calls for optimal information provision as well as active patient involvement.

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the perceptions of patients with T1CRC on information provision and therapeutic decision-making.

Methods: This multicenter cross-sectional study included patients who underwent endoscopic or local surgical resection as initial treatment. Information provision was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire. In patients with high-risk T1CRC, we evaluated decisional involvement and satisfaction regarding the choice as to whether to undergo additional treatment after local resection, and the level of decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale.

Results: Ninety-eight patients with T1CRC were included (72% response rate; 79/98 endoscopic and 19/98 local surgical resection; 45/98 high-risk T1CRC). Median time since local resection was 28 months (IQR 18); none had developed recurrence. Unmet information needs were reported by 29 patients (30%; 18 low-risk, 11 high-risk), mostly on post-treatment related topics (follow-up visits, recovery time, recurrence prevention). After local resection, 24 of the 45 high-risk patients (53%) underwent additional treatment, while others were subjected to surveillance. Higher-educated patients were more often actively involved in decision-making (93% vs. 43%, p = 0.002) and more frequently underwent additional treatment (79% vs. 40%, p = 0.02). Decisional conflict (p = 0.19) and satisfaction (p = 0.78) were comparable between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients.

Conclusion: Greater attention should be given to the post-treatment course during consultations following local T1CRC resection. The differences in decisional involvement and selected management strategies between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients warrant further investigation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
United European Gastroenterology Journal
United European Gastroenterology Journal GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
147
期刊介绍: United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal) is the official Journal of the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), a professional non-profit organisation combining all the leading European societies concerned with digestive disease. UEG’s member societies represent over 22,000 specialists working across medicine, surgery, paediatrics, GI oncology and endoscopy, which makes UEG a unique platform for collaboration and the exchange of knowledge.
期刊最新文献
Mucosal Healing in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Still too Many Irons on the Fire. Early colorectal cancer diagnosis: A novel methylated stool DNA model enhanced the diagnostic efficiency. Fecal calprotectin: A promising readily available tool associated with outcome in patients with cirrhosis. Hearing what isn't said. Selection of individuals who may benefit from pancreatic cancer surveillance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1