ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2026
Patient experiences and decision-making priorities in early esophageal cancer: a qualitative interview study.
Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic resection (ER) may offer organ preserving treatment in early (cT1N0) esophago-gastric (OG) cancer. Resectional surgery after ER may be recommended if pathological factors suggesting a risk of occult nodal metastasis are identified. Decision-making in this setting is complex, as patients must weigh the unknown risk of cancer progression with surveillance, against the more tangible and measurable impact of major surgery. Understanding patient priorities and values in making this decision is essential to support informed, patient-centered care. A semi-structured interview study was conducted. Patients who had previously undergone ER for early OG cancer were included. Patients were asked to consider a scenario in which they might be recommended either resectional surgery or endoscopic surveillance, and respond based on their own experiences and background. Interviews explored experiences of receiving the diagnosis, decision-making priorities, and joint decision-making preferences. Treatment-related anxiety was assessed using questions based on the validated cancer worry score. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic content analysis until data saturation was achieved. Thematic saturation was achieved after 17 interviews. Long-term quality of life and independence emerged as the most important factors influencing decision-making. Overall survival was highly valued, and the fear of operative mortality generally low. Cancer-related anxiety was common, particularly among patients who had recently undergone ER. Participants preferred to be involved and included in the decisions but generally wanted their clinicians to guide choices, and trusted their recommendations. Statistical risk information was often considered overwhelming or less useful for patients. The intensity of post-ER surveillance was a challenge for participants, with mixed impact. While many patients accepted this to avoid surgery, for others cancer-related anxiety or the burden of surveillance was reason to prefer surgical treatment. To conclude, decision-making after ER for early OG cancer reflects a complex interplay of physical, psychological, and logistical priorities, which may fit poorly into current guidelines for early OG cancer therapy. Patient-centered counseling must consider long-term quality of life, provide flexible communication, and incorporate balanced multidisciplinary input to facilitate informed and individualized decisions.
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.