PD
Pascal G. Doornebosch
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Journal article
(2020)
-
Maxime J.M. van der Valk, Marit E. van der Sande, Koen C.M.J. Peeters, Geerard L. Beets, Perla J. Marang-van de Mheen, Denise E. Hilling, Renee E. Toebes, Stephanie O. Breukink, Mirelle E.E. Bröker, Pascal G. Doornebosch, Nansi Maliko, Peter A. Neijenhuis, Andreas W.K.S. Marinelli, Femke P. Peters
Introduction: Several factors are included in decision making for treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including a trade-off between risks and gains of both clinical and functional outcomes. However, it is largely unknown which outcomes are most important to patients and whether this differs between patients and clinicians. Methods: Both clinicians and patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer were invited to fill out an online questionnaire, including a choice-based conjoint experiment. Participants were presented 14 comparisons of two hypothetical case presentations, characterized by different treatments and outcomes of care (6 attributes) and were asked to select the case with the best outcome at that moment. Hierarchical Bayes Estimation was used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each of the six attributes. Results: In total, 94 patients and 128 clinicians completed the questionnaire. For patients, avoiding surgery with permanent stoma was most important (RI 24.4, 95%CI 21.88–26.87) and a 2-year difference in disease-free survival was least important (RI 5.6, 95%CI 4.9–6.2). Clinicians assigned highest importance to avoiding severe and daily worries about cancer recurrence (RI 30.7, 95%CI 29.1–32.4), while this was ranked 4th by patients (RI 17.9, 95%CI 16.5–19.4, p < 0.001). Conclusion: When confronted with different outcomes within one case description, patients find the duration of disease free survival the least important. In addition, considerable differences were found between the importance assigned by patients and clinicians to clinical and functional outcomes, most notably in avoiding surgery with permanent stoma and worries about recurrence.
...
Introduction: Several factors are included in decision making for treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, including a trade-off between risks and gains of both clinical and functional outcomes. However, it is largely unknown which outcomes are most important to patients and whether this differs between patients and clinicians. Methods: Both clinicians and patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer were invited to fill out an online questionnaire, including a choice-based conjoint experiment. Participants were presented 14 comparisons of two hypothetical case presentations, characterized by different treatments and outcomes of care (6 attributes) and were asked to select the case with the best outcome at that moment. Hierarchical Bayes Estimation was used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each of the six attributes. Results: In total, 94 patients and 128 clinicians completed the questionnaire. For patients, avoiding surgery with permanent stoma was most important (RI 24.4, 95%CI 21.88–26.87) and a 2-year difference in disease-free survival was least important (RI 5.6, 95%CI 4.9–6.2). Clinicians assigned highest importance to avoiding severe and daily worries about cancer recurrence (RI 30.7, 95%CI 29.1–32.4), while this was ranked 4th by patients (RI 17.9, 95%CI 16.5–19.4, p < 0.001). Conclusion: When confronted with different outcomes within one case description, patients find the duration of disease free survival the least important. In addition, considerable differences were found between the importance assigned by patients and clinicians to clinical and functional outcomes, most notably in avoiding surgery with permanent stoma and worries about recurrence.
Journal article
(2018)
-
Julia T. van Groningen, Pieter van Hagen, Rob A.E.M. Tollenaar, Jurriaan B. Tuynman, Perla J. Marang-van de Mheen, Pascal G. Doornebosch, Pieter J. Tanis, Eelco J.R. De Graaf
Background: According to Dutch guidelines, locally excised, low-risk, pT1 or ypT0–1 rectal cancer should not necessarily be followed by completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) in contrast to rectal cancers with higher T stages or unfavorable features. This study evaluated cTME after local excision at a national level with possible determinants for decision-making. Methods: All patients in the Dutch Colorectal Audit (DCRA) who underwent local excision of rectal cancer between 2012 and 2015 were included. Guideline adherence for performing cTME was determined with univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors related to noncompliance. Results: According to the guidelines, of 530 included patients, cTME was indicated in 283 (53%), and among those, was performed in 82 (29%). Guideline adherence for performing cTME improved significantly (P<.001), from 10% in 2012 to 44% in 2015. Lower Charlson comorbidity index in patients with high-risk pT1 rectal cancer and younger patients (aged 61–70 years vs ≥80 years) with pT≥2 rectal cancer were associated with increased performance of cTME (odds ratio [OR], 13.50; 95% CI, 1.39–131.32, and OR, 6.25; 95% CI, 1.83–21.31, respectively). Conclusions: In this population-based study from the Netherlands, only a minority of patients underwent cTME after local excision of rectal cancer with pathologic features indicating the need for further treatment according to the guidelines. Although the percentage of patients undergoing cTME increased over time, the study indicated a tendency toward rectal-preserving treatment with potential oncologic risks.
...
Background: According to Dutch guidelines, locally excised, low-risk, pT1 or ypT0–1 rectal cancer should not necessarily be followed by completion total mesorectal excision (cTME) in contrast to rectal cancers with higher T stages or unfavorable features. This study evaluated cTME after local excision at a national level with possible determinants for decision-making. Methods: All patients in the Dutch Colorectal Audit (DCRA) who underwent local excision of rectal cancer between 2012 and 2015 were included. Guideline adherence for performing cTME was determined with univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors related to noncompliance. Results: According to the guidelines, of 530 included patients, cTME was indicated in 283 (53%), and among those, was performed in 82 (29%). Guideline adherence for performing cTME improved significantly (P<.001), from 10% in 2012 to 44% in 2015. Lower Charlson comorbidity index in patients with high-risk pT1 rectal cancer and younger patients (aged 61–70 years vs ≥80 years) with pT≥2 rectal cancer were associated with increased performance of cTME (odds ratio [OR], 13.50; 95% CI, 1.39–131.32, and OR, 6.25; 95% CI, 1.83–21.31, respectively). Conclusions: In this population-based study from the Netherlands, only a minority of patients underwent cTME after local excision of rectal cancer with pathologic features indicating the need for further treatment according to the guidelines. Although the percentage of patients undergoing cTME increased over time, the study indicated a tendency toward rectal-preserving treatment with potential oncologic risks.