ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2024
T1 colorectal cancer patients' perspective on information provision and therapeutic decision-making after local resection.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The predictive value of contrast-enhanced CT characteristics combined with composite inflammatory markers for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Exploration of between-hospital variation and the basis for decision making in management of malignant colorectal polyps- a Danish population-based study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- T1 colorectal cancer patients' perspective on information provision and therapeutic decision-making after local resection.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
- Hearing what isn't said.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-making after local resection of T1 colorectal cancer (T1CRC) is often complex and calls for optimal information provision as well as active patient involvement.
objectiveThe aim was to evaluate the perceptions of patients with T1CRC on information provision and therapeutic decision-making.
methodsThis 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.
resultsNinety-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.
conclusionGreater 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.