Treatment selection of early stage non-small cell lung cancer: the role of the patient in clinical decision making.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to investigate the role and experience of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient in decision making process concerning treatment selection in the current clinical practice. METHODS: Stage I-II NSCLC patients (surgery 55 patients, SBRT 29 patients, median age 68) were included in this prospective study and completed a questionnaire that explored: (1) perceived patient knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options, (2) experience with current clinical decision making, and (3) the information that the patient reported to have received from their treating physician. This was assessed by multiple-choice, 1-5 Likert Scale, and open questions. The Decisional Conflict Scale was used to assess the decisional conflict. Health related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured with SF-36 questionnaire. RESULTS: In 19% of patients, there was self-reported perceived lack of knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options. Seventy-four percent of patients felt that they were sufficiently involved in decision-making by their physician, and 81% found it important to be involved in decision making. Forty percent experienced decisional conflict, and one-in-five patients to such an extent that it made them feel unsure about the decision. Subscores with regard to feeling uninformed and on uncertainty, contributed the most to decisional conflict, as 36% felt uninformed and 17% of patients were not satisfied with their decision. HRQoL was not influenced by patient experience with decision-making or patient preferences for shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch early-stage NSCLC patients find it important to be involved in treatment decision making. Yet a substantial proportion experiences decisional conflict and feels uninformed. Better patient information and/or involvement in treatment-decision-making is needed in order to improve patient knowledge and hopefully reduce decisional conflict.

Meta-analysis of colorectal cancer follow-up after potentially curative resection.

BACKGROUND: After potentially curative resection of primary colorectal cancer, patients may be monitored by measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen and/or CT to detect asymptomatic metastatic disease earlier. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to find evidence for the clinical effectiveness of monitoring in advancing the diagnosis of recurrence and its effect on survival. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and other databases were searched for randomized comparisons of increased intensity monitoring compared with a contemporary standard policy after resection of primary colorectal cancer. RESULTS: There were 16 randomized comparisons, 11 with published survival data. More intensive monitoring advanced the diagnosis of recurrence by a median of 10 (i.q.r. 5-24) months. In ten of 11 studies the authors reported no demonstrable difference in overall survival. Seven RCTs, published from 1995 to 2016, randomly assigned 3325 patients to a monitoring protocol made more intensive by introducing new methods or increasing the frequency of existing follow-up protocols versus less invasive monitoring. No detectable difference in overall survival was associated with more intensive monitoring protocols (hazard ratio 0·98, 95 per cent c.i. 0·87 to 1·11). CONCLUSION: Based on pooled data from randomized trials published from 1995 to 2016, the anticipated survival benefit from surgical treatment resulting from earlier detection of metastases has not been achieved.