Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256205›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024

Needs, preferences, and patient participation for a randomized controlled trial on postneoadjuvant complete tumor response: A qualitative study of patients with esophageal cancer.

Manuel Czornik, Joachim Weis, Andrea Kiemen, Claudia Schmoor, Julian Hipp, Jens Hoeppner

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [The added value of self-help-oriented research in oncology for stakeholders in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Manuel Czornik *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy/Division for Interventional Biological Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Joachim Weis *Endowed Professorship Self-Help Research, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Joachim.weis@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
Andrea KiemenDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Basel, c/o University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Claudia SchmoorClinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Julian HippDepartment of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jens HoeppnerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center OWL - Campus Lippe, Detmold, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01KD1908
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFor patients with clinical complete response of non-metastatic esophageal cancer (EC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), the two treatment options obligate postneoadjuvant surgery as the current standard treatment (surgery on principle) versus active surveillance with surgery as needed only in recurring loco-regional tumor as a possible future alternative or standard exist. Since these treatments are presumably equivalent in terms of overall survival, patient-centered information can encourage the discussion with the treating physician and can make it easier for patients to make trade-offs between the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment alternatives in a highly distressed situation.

methodsA qualitative prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to create patient-centered information material that is based on patients' preferences, needs, and concerns regarding the two treatment options, and to investigate the potential participation in a consecutive randomized controlled trial (RCT). Therefore, EC patients (N = 11) were asked about their attitudes.

resultsConcerns about the surgery and possible postoperative impairments in quality of life were identified as most mentioned negative aspects of surgery on principle, and recurrence and progression fear and the concern that surgery cannot be avoided anyways as most named negative aspects of surgery as needed. In regard to the participation in an RCT, making a contribution to science and the hope that the novel therapy would be superior to the established one were relevant arguments to participate. On the other hand, the lack of a proactive selection of treatment was named an important barrier to participation in an RCT.

conclusionThe importance of adapting medical conversations to the patients' lack of expertise and their exceptional cognitive and emotional situation is stressed. Results of this study can be used to improve patient-centered information and the recruitment of patients in RCTs in cancer.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsNeoadjuvant TherapyPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeActive surveillanceEsophageal cancerEsophagectomyPatient participationPsycho-social needs

Identifiers

PMID39256205
PMCPMC11387432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.