761 PATIENT PREFERENCES FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE VERSUS STANDARD SURGERY AFTER NEOADJUVANT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY IN ESOPHAGEAL CANCER TREATMENT. (17th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hermus, Merel; Wilk, Berend; Collee, Gerlise; Chang, Rebecca; Noordman, Bo; Dekker, Jan Willem; Esser, Stijn; Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard; Luyer, Misha; Rosman, Camiel; Klarenbeek, Bastiaan; Coene, Peter-Paul; Harst, Erwin; Wijnhoven, Bas; Busschbach, Jan; Lanschot, Jan; Lagarde, Sjoerd; Kranenburg, Leonieke
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the esophagus. Volume 34(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-09-17
• Subjects: Esophagus -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.32
• DOI: 10.1093/dote/doab052.761
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1120-8694

Abstract

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.