Search

Objective: To evaluate whether patients with advanced cancer prefer surgeons to use the best case/worst case (BC/WC) communication framework over the traditional risk/benefit (R/B) framework in the context of palliative surgical scenarios., Background: Identifying the patient's preferred communication frameworks may improve satisfaction and outcome measures during difficult clinical decision-making., Methods: In a video-vignette-based randomized, double-blinded study from November 2020 to May 2021, patients with advanced cancer viewed 2 videos depicting a physician-patient encounter in a palliative surgical scenario, in which the surgeon uses either the BC/WC or the R/B framework to discuss treatment options. The primary outcome was the patients' preferred video surgeon., Results: One hundred fifty-five patients were approached to participate; 66 were randomized and 58 completed the study (mean age 55.8 ± 13.8 years, 60.3% males). 22 patients (37.9%, 95% CI: 25.4%-50.4%) preferred the surgeon using the BC/WC framework, 21 (36.2%, 95% CI: 23.8%-48.6%) preferred the surgeon using the R/B framework, and 15 (25.9%, 95% CI: 14.6%-37.2%) indicated no preference. High trust in the medical profession was inversely associated with a preference for the surgeon using BC/WC framework (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98, P = 0.03). The BC/WC framework rated higher for perceived surgeon's listening (4.6 ± 0.7 vs 4.3±0.9, P = 0.03) and confidence in the surgeon's trustworthiness (4.3 ± 0.8 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.04)., Conclusions: Surgeon use of the BC/WC communication framework was not universally preferred but was as acceptable to patients as the traditional R/B framework and rated higher in certain aspects of communication. A preference for a surgeon using BC/WC was associated with lower trust in the medical profession. Surgeons should consider the BC/WC framework to individualize their approach to challenging clinical discussions., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: External exposures, the host, and the microbiome interact in oncology. We aimed to investigate tumoral microbiomes in young-onset rectal cancers (YORCs) for profiles potentially correlative with disease etiology and biology., Background: YORC is rapidly increasing, with 1 in 4 new rectal cancer cases occurring under the age of 50 years. Its etiology is unknown., Methods: YORC (<50 y old) or later-onset rectal cancer (LORC, ≥50 y old) patients underwent pretreatment biopsied of tumor and tumor-adjacent normal (TAN) tissue. After whole genome sequencing, metagenomic analysis quantified microbial communities comparing tumors versus TANs and YORCs versus LORCs, controlling for multiple testing. Response to neoadjuvant therapy (NT) was categorized as major pathological response (MPR, ≤10% residual viable tumor) versus non-MPR., Results: Our 107 tumors, 75 TANs from 37 (35%) YORCs, and 70 (65%) LORCs recapitulated bacterial species were previously associated with colorectal cancers (all P <0.0001). YORC and LORC tumoral microbiome signatures were distinct. After NT, 13 patients (12.4%) achieved complete pathologic response, whereas MPR occurred in 47 patients (44%). Among YORCs, MPR was associated with Fusobacterium nucleaum , Bacteroides dorei, and Ruminococcus bromii (all P <0.001), but MPR in LORC was associated with R. bromii ( P <0.001). Network analysis of non-MPR tumors demonstrated a preponderance of oral bacteria not observed in MPR tumors., Conclusions: Microbial signatures were distinct between YORC and LORC. Failure to achieve an MPR was associated with oral bacteria in tumors. These findings urge further studies to decipher correlative versus mechanistic associations but suggest a potential for microbial modulation to augment current treatments., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)