Active surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we... Show moreActive surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we gained insight in patients' motive to opt for either an experimental treatment called active surveillance or for standard immediate surgery. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses methods were used. Forty patients were interviewed about their treatment preference, 3 months after completion of nCRT (T1). Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. In addition, at T1 and T2 (12 months after completion of nCRT) questionnaires on health-related quality of life, coping, anxiety and decisional regret (only T2) were administered. Interview data analyses resulted in a conceptual model with 'dealing with threat of cancer' as the central theme. Patients preferring active surveillance tend to cope with this threat by confiding in their bodies and good outcomes. Their mind-set is one of 'enjoy life now'. Patients preferring surgery tend to cope by minimizing uncertainty and eliminating the source of cancer. Their mind-set is one of 'don't give up, act now'. Furthermore, questionnaire results showed that patients with a preference for standard surgery had a lower quality of life. Patient preferences are individualized and thus difficult to predict. Our model can help healthcare professionals to determine patient preferences for treatment. Coping style and mind-set seem to be determining factors here. Show less
The concept of pulmonary embolism is evolving. Recent and emerging evidence on the treatment of specific patient populations, its secondary prevention, long-term complications, and the unmet need... Show moreThe concept of pulmonary embolism is evolving. Recent and emerging evidence on the treatment of specific patient populations, its secondary prevention, long-term complications, and the unmet need for rehabilitation has the potential to change clinical practice for the benefit of the patients. This review discusses the recent evidence from clinical trials, observational studies, and guidelines focusing on anticoagulation treatment, rehabilitation, emotional stress, quality of life, and the associated outcomes for patients with pulmonary embolism. Guidelines suggest that the type and duration of treatment with anticoagulation should be based on prevalent risk factors. Recent studies demonstrate that an anticoagulant treatment that is longer than two years may be effective and safe for some patients. The evidence for extended treatment in cancer patients is limited. Careful consideration is particularly necessary for pulmonary embolisms in pregnancy, cancer, and at the end of life. The rehabilitation and prevention of unnecessary deconditioning, emotional distress, and a reduced quality of life is an important, but currently they are unmet priorities for many patients with a pulmonary embolism. Future research could demonstrate optimal anticoagulant therapy durations, follow-ups, and rehabilitation, and effective patient-centered decision making at the end of life. A patient preferences and shared decision making should be incorporated in their routine care when weighing the benefits and risks with primary treatment and secondary prevention. Show less
For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment... Show moreFor physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions. Show less
Unpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes... Show moreUnpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies and assesses such preferences. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 22 studies (3243 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Nineteen studies assessed willingness to receive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), six, the preferred place of care, and eight, preferences regarding shared decision-making processes. When unspecified, 21% of patients in four studies preferred any LST option. In three studies, fewer patients chose LST when faced with death and deteriorating health, and more when treatment promised life extension. In 13 studies, 67% and 48% of patients respectively were willing to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, but willingness decreased with deteriorating health. Further, 52% of patients from three studies wished to die at home. Seven studies showed that unless incapacitated, most patients prefer to decide on their EoL care themselves. High non-response rates meant RoB was high in most studies. Knowledge of EoL care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity increases the chance such care will be provided. Show less
Timmermans, I.; Meine, M.; Szendey, I.; Aring, J.; Roldan, J.R.; Erven, L. van; ... ; Versteeg, H. 2019
Background Patient satisfaction with remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) seems to be high, yet knowledge on long-term patient experiences is limited.... Show moreBackground Patient satisfaction with remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) seems to be high, yet knowledge on long-term patient experiences is limited. The European REMOTE-CIED study explored patients' experiences with RPM, examined patient's preferences for ICD follow-up, and identified determinants of patient's preferences in the first 2 years postimplantation. Methods European heart failure patients (N = 300; median age = 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 59-73], and 22% female) with a first-time ICD received a Boston Scientific LATITUDE RPM system (Marlborough, MA, USA) and had scheduled in-clinic follow-ups once a year. Patients completed questionnaires at 1-2 weeks and also at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postimplantation and clinical data were obtained from their medical records. Patient evaluation data were analyzed descriptively, and Student's t-tests/Man-Whitney U tests or Chi-square tests/Fisher's exact tests were performed to examine determinants of patient preferences. Results At 2 years postimplantation, the median patient satisfaction score with the RPM system was 9 out of 10 (IQR = 8-10), despite 53% of the patients experiencing issues (eg, failure to transmit data). Of the 221 patients who reported their follow-up preferences, 43% preferred RPM and 19% preferred in-clinic follow-up. Patients with a preference for RPM were more likely to be higher educated (P = 0.04), employed (P = 0.04), and equipped with a new LATITUDE model (P = 0.04), but less likely to suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.009). Conclusion In general, patients were highly satisfied with RPM, but a subgroup preferred in-clinic follow-up. Therefore, physicians should include patients' concerns and preferences in the decision-making process, to tailor device follow-up to individual patients' needs and preferences. Show less
