Utilizing Patient Input in Rectal Cancer Trial Design

Janet Alvarez, Wini Zambare, Manju George, Reese Garcia, Phuong Gallagher, Caleah Kitchens, Aron Bercz, Min Jung Kim, Paul B Romesser, Andrea Cercek, Julio Garcia-Aguilar, Hanna Sanoff, Thomas J George, Theodore S Hong, Greg Yothers, Philip A Philip, Tareq Al Baghdadi, Olatunji B Alese, Ardaman Shergill, Eileen M O’Reilly, Jeffrey A Meyerhardt, Natally Horvat, Arvind Dasari, William A Hall, Qian Shi, Deborah Schrag, J Joshua Smith
{"title":"Utilizing Patient Input in Rectal Cancer Trial Design","authors":"Janet Alvarez, Wini Zambare, Manju George, Reese Garcia, Phuong Gallagher, Caleah Kitchens, Aron Bercz, Min Jung Kim, Paul B Romesser, Andrea Cercek, Julio Garcia-Aguilar, Hanna Sanoff, Thomas J George, Theodore S Hong, Greg Yothers, Philip A Philip, Tareq Al Baghdadi, Olatunji B Alese, Ardaman Shergill, Eileen M O’Reilly, Jeffrey A Meyerhardt, Natally Horvat, Arvind Dasari, William A Hall, Qian Shi, Deborah Schrag, J Joshua Smith","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer now includes “watch-and-wait” (WW) management for patients who exhibit a clinical complete response (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). We assessed patients’ knowledge and preferences regarding WW with the goal of incorporating patient input into clinical trial design. Methods Rectal cancer patients in advocacy groups (COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh and Fight CRC) were surveyed regarding perceptions about treatment strategies, tolerable risks of treatment failure, and preferences on clinical trial design. Surveys were initially distributed in 2019, with the shift toward WW prompting re-survey of select questions in 2023. Results All respondents preferred enrollment in trials that incorporated patient input. Most respondents (76%) preferred treatment that incorporated chemotherapy escalation over radiation escalation. Further, when presented with a hypothetical patient who developed a cCR after chemoradiation (without the option for WW), 58% of patients chose surgical treatment (with 100% risk of permanent ostomy and 80% chance of cure) over omission of surgery (with <80% chance of cure). In contrast, when the hypothetical patient developed a cCR after TNT (with an option for WW), 82% of patients opted for selective WW over surgery. Conclusions This work successfully integrated patient advocacy groups as a resource for obtaining patient input. Surveys revealed patients had a strong preference for chemotherapy escalation, for selective WW when offered, and for incorporation of input into future clinical trial design. These findings describe how well-informed patients approach complex medical decision-making and serve as a starting point for future studies seeking to incorporate patient voices.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer now includes “watch-and-wait” (WW) management for patients who exhibit a clinical complete response (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). We assessed patients’ knowledge and preferences regarding WW with the goal of incorporating patient input into clinical trial design. Methods Rectal cancer patients in advocacy groups (COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh and Fight CRC) were surveyed regarding perceptions about treatment strategies, tolerable risks of treatment failure, and preferences on clinical trial design. Surveys were initially distributed in 2019, with the shift toward WW prompting re-survey of select questions in 2023. Results All respondents preferred enrollment in trials that incorporated patient input. Most respondents (76%) preferred treatment that incorporated chemotherapy escalation over radiation escalation. Further, when presented with a hypothetical patient who developed a cCR after chemoradiation (without the option for WW), 58% of patients chose surgical treatment (with 100% risk of permanent ostomy and 80% chance of cure) over omission of surgery (with <80% chance of cure). In contrast, when the hypothetical patient developed a cCR after TNT (with an option for WW), 82% of patients opted for selective WW over surgery. Conclusions This work successfully integrated patient advocacy groups as a resource for obtaining patient input. Surveys revealed patients had a strong preference for chemotherapy escalation, for selective WW when offered, and for incorporation of input into future clinical trial design. These findings describe how well-informed patients approach complex medical decision-making and serve as a starting point for future studies seeking to incorporate patient voices.
在直肠癌试验设计中利用患者输入
目前,局部晚期直肠癌的治疗包括对临床完全缓解(cCR)的患者进行观察和等待(WW)管理。我们评估了患者对WW的知识和偏好,目的是将患者输入纳入临床试验设计。方法对倡导组(COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh和Fight CRC)的直肠癌患者进行调查,了解他们对治疗策略的看法、治疗失败的可容忍风险以及对临床试验设计的偏好。调查最初于2019年分发,随着向WW的转变,促使人们在2023年重新调查选定的问题。结果所有应答者都倾向于纳入纳入患者输入的试验。大多数受访者(76%)更喜欢化疗升级而不是放疗升级的治疗。此外,当假设患者在放化疗后出现cCR(没有WW选项)时,58%的患者选择手术治疗(永久性造口的风险为100%,治愈的可能性为80%)而不选择手术治疗(治愈的可能性为80%)。相比之下,当假设患者在TNT后发生cCR(可选择WW)时,82%的患者选择选择性WW而不是手术。这项工作成功地整合了患者倡导团体作为获取患者投入的资源。调查显示,患者强烈倾向于化疗升级,选择WW,并将其纳入未来的临床试验设计。这些发现描述了知情的患者如何处理复杂的医疗决策,并作为寻求纳入患者声音的未来研究的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信