Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun;11(12):2427-2444.
doi: 10.1002/cam4.4596. Epub 2022 Feb 15.

Treatment decision-making during outpatient clinic visit of patients with esophagogastric cancer. The perspectives of clinicians and patients, a mixed method, multiple case study

Josianne C H B M Luijten  1 , Linda Brom  1   2 , Pauline A J Vissers  1 , Yes A J van de Wouw  3 , Fabienne A R M Warmerdam  4 , Joos Heisterkamp  5 , Stella Mook  6 , Jamal Oulad Hadj  7 , Marc J van Det  8 , Liesbeth Timmermans  9   10 , Maarten C C M Hulshof  11 , Hanneke W M van Laarhoven  12 , Camiel Rosman  13 , Peter D Siersema  14 , Marjan J Westerman  15 , Rob H A Verhoeven  1   12 , Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen  16
Affiliations

Treatment decision-making during outpatient clinic visit of patients with esophagogastric cancer. The perspectives of clinicians and patients, a mixed method, multiple case study

Josianne C H B M Luijten et al. Cancer Med. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Background: The probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent according to the hospital of diagnosis varies for esophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. Little is known about the factors contributing to this variation. This study aimed to improve the understanding of the differences between the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal and the treatment that was actually carried out and to qualitatively investigate the differences in treatment decision-making after the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal between hospitals.

Methods: To gain an in-depth understanding of treatment decision-making, quantitative data (i.e., multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and treatment that was carried out) were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment comprised changes in the type of treatment option (i.e., curative or palliative, or no change) and were calculated according to the multivariable multilevel probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent (low, middle, and high). Qualitative data were collected from eight hospitals, including observations of 26 outpatient clinic consultations, 30 in-depth interviews with clinicians, seven focus groups with clinicians, and three focus groups with patients. Clinicians and patients' perspectives were assessed using thematic content analysis.

Results: The multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment were concordant in 97% of the cases. Clinicians' implementation of treatment decision-making in clinical practice varied, which was mentioned by the clinicians to be due to the clinician's personality and values. Differences between clinicians consisted of discussing all treatment options versus only the best fitting treatment option and the extent of discussing the benefits and harms. Most patients aimed to undergo curative treatment regardless of the consequences, since they believed this could prolong their life.

Conclusion: Since changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting-proposed treatment and actual treatment were rarely observed, this study emphasizes the importance of an adequately formulated multidisciplinary team meeting proposal.

Keywords: clinicians' perspectives; esophageal and gastric cancer; multidisciplinary team meeting; patients' perspectives; treatment decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

PS: Research support or funding: EndoStim, Pentax, Norgine, Motus GI and The Enose company Advisory Board: Motus GIE; HvL: Consultant or advisory role: BMS, Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Servier, Research funding and/or medication supply: Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Philips, Roche, Servier; RV: received research grants from Roche and Bristol‐Myers Squibb; For the remaining authors no conflict of interest was declared.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Treatment decision‐making
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Accessed October 19, 2020. Available at: https://www.iknl.nl/nkr‐cijfers
    1. Nederlandse Vereniging van Maag‐Darm‐Leverartsen, Type: Landelijke richtlijn Oesophaguscarcinoom. May, 1 2015. Accessed November 25, 2019. Available at: www.oncoline.nl/oesofaguscarcinoom
    1. Lordick F, Mariette C, Haustermans K, Obermannova R, Arnold D, Committee EG. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v50‐v57. - PubMed
    1. Smyth EC, Verheij M, Allum W, et al. Gastric cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v38‐v49. - PubMed
    1. Landelijke werkgroep Gastro‐intestinale Tumoren, Type: Landelijke richtlijn. Landelijke richtlijn Maagcarcinoom. March 1, 2017. Accessed November 25, 2019. Available at: https://www.oncoline.nl/maagcarcinoom

Publication types