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.

Comparing cost aspects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery with coronary artery stenting.

Randomized trials have compared revascularization of coronary artery disease by coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CABG is an expensive treatment. However, it manages to improve quality of life, restore general well being, and alleviate symptoms of patients. Coronary stents have improved the safety and durability of PCI. Nonetheless, stenting remains limited by a relatively high in-stent restenosis and thrombosis rate. The costs and cost-effectiveness for these different treatment modalities are relevant issues because cardiovascular disease and its management are prime targets for cost reduction initiatives. There is a debate as to which is the optimal treatment strategy as well as to the cost-effectiveness comparing CABG and PCI. This review provides an overview of cost-effectiveness of CABG compared with PCI. PCI has high costs due to the need for subsequent revascularization procedures, with absence of mortality and survival benefit compared with CABG. Despite the relative lower initial costs of PCI in the first year, PCI is not a cost-effective intervention in comparison with CABG. However, the studies undertaken to date have predominantly been short term and provide a very limited evidence base by which to assess the cost-effectiveness of modern clinical practice. It seems that in longer term, the benefits of CABG may exceed those of stenting and the difference in net cost may be in favour of CABG as the risk of repeat revascularization still increases with PCI regardless of the use of DES. However, to date no long-term data are available in cost-effectiveness between CABG and PCI. The 5-year outcome of the ongoing SYNTAX trial is essential and might therefore provide new insights into the comparison of cost-effectiveness between CABG and DES PCI.

Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer surgery.

AIMS: Complete surgical resection of primary tumours remains the treatment with the greatest likelihood for survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although TNM stage is the most important prognostic parameter in NSCLC, additional parameters are required to explain the large variability in postoperative outcome. The present review aims at providing an overview of the currently known prognostic markers for postoperative outcome. METHODS: We performed an electronic literature search on the MEDLINE database to identify relevant studies describing the risk factors in NSCLC surgery. The references reported in all the identified studies were used for completion of the literature search. RESULTS: Poor pulmonary function, cardiovascular disease, male gender, advanced age, TNM stage, non-squamous cell histology, pneumonectomy, low hospital volume and little experience of the surgeon were identified as risk factors for postoperative outcome. However, with the exception of TNM stage and extent of resection, the literature demonstrates conflicting results on the prognostic power of most factors. The role of molecular biological factors, neoadjuvant treatment and adjuvant treatment is not well investigated yet. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of knowing about the existence of comorbidity and prognostic risk factors may provide the clinician with the ability to identify poor prognostic patients and establish the most appropriate treatment strategy. The assessment of prognostic factors remains an area of active investigation and a promising field of research in optimising therapy of NSCLC patients.

Validation of the Charlson comorbidity index in patients with operated primary non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the influence of the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) in patients with operated primary non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: From January 1996 to December 2001, 205 consecutive resections for non-small cell lung cancer were performed at the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam. The patients ranged in age from 29 to 82 years, with a mean age of 64 years. In a retrospective study, each patient was scaled according to the CCI and the complications of surgery were determined. RESULTS: The hospital mortality was 2.4% (5/205). Of the 205 patients 167 (32.7%) experienced minor complications and 32 (15.6%) major complications. In univariate analysis, gender, grades 3-4 of the CCI, any prior tumor treated in the last 5 years and chronic pulmonary disease were significant predictors of adverse outcome. Multivariate analysis showed that only grades 3-4 of the CCI was predictive (odds ratio=9.8; 95% confidence interval=2.1-45.9). Although only comorbidity grades 3-4 was a significant predictor, for every increase of the comorbidity grade the relative risk of adverse outcome showed a slight increase. CONCLUSION: The CCI is strongly correlated with higher risk of surgery in primary non-small cell lung cancer patients and is a better predictor than individual risk factors.