Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.

Shared Decision-making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (Or, It Takes at Least Two to Tango)

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations
 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett’s esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 – 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

/pdf/endoscopic-submucosal-dissection-european-society-of-15ehwxumnf.pdf

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

/pdf/endoscopic-submucosal-dissection-for-superficial-3nn1pp6i.pdf

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

Incidence and impact of scheduled endoscopic surveillance on recurrence after curative endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer

Hospital-acquired pneumonia after an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can prolong the patient’s stay in the hospital, leading to greater healthcare costs. However, little is known of the characteristics and risk factors associated with this complication. To analyze the clinical features of pneumonia after ESD and to suggest a treatment plan. This was a retrospective study in which the cases of 1,661 consecutive patients who underwent ESD for 1,725 lesions between January 2008 and June 2011 were reviewed. Of the 1,661 patients who underwent ESD during the study period, 38 were subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia, and an additional 18 patients exhibited lung consolidation, based on chest radiography, without respiratory signs or symptoms. The remaining 1,605 patients showed neither lung consolidation on chest radiography nor respiratory signs/symptoms. Continuous propofol infusion with intermittent or continuous administration of an opioid [odds ratio (OR) 4.498, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.267–8.923], a procedure time of >2 h (OR 2.900, 95 % CI 1.307–6.439), male gender (OR 2.835, 95 % CI 1.164–6.909), and age >75 years (OR 2.765, 95 % CI 1.224–6.249) were independent risk factors for pneumonia after ESD. In patients with only lung consolidation (without respiratory signs and symptoms), the length of hospital stay and prognosis were not affected by antibiotics use. Deep sedation under continuous propofol infusion with opioid injection during ESD may be a risk factor for pneumonia.

Risk Factors and Prognosis of Pulmonary Complications After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Neoplasia

Background

This study was to evaluate the participation role and conflict of patients during the decision-making process for endoscopic or surgical treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC).



Methods

In this prospective observational study, the sequential survey for patients under consideration for treatment of differentiated EGC was performed at the tertiary referral center.



Results

Among the 82 responders, 63.4% preferred endoscopic resection. The total decisional conflict scores were high and significantly different between groups that preferred endoscopic resection or surgical treatment (44.8 vs. 51.6, P = 0.016). Values assigned to the two treatment attributes “preservation of stomach (OR = 0.51)” and “bother in case of incomplete resection (OR = 2.13)” clearly discriminated between patients reaching a final decision of surgical gastrectomy or endoscopic resection. Regarding the participation role, a shared role was more frequent in the group with preference for endoscopic treatment before consultation (42.3% vs. 24.0%, P = 0.045). However, at the time of therapeutic decision, the passive role was most remarkable, both for the endoscopic (53.2%) and surgical (71.4%) groups.



Conclusion

Despite the high overall decisional conflict, patients with preference for endoscopic treatment tended to be more autonomous. After consultation, all patients exhibited a passive participation role in the decision-making process. J. Surg. Oncol. 2012; 106:101–106. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Participation and conflict in the decision-making process for endoscopic resection or surgical gastrectomy for early gastric cancer

Sa1487 Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Undifferentiated Early Gastric Cancer: Single Center Experiences in Korea

Although proper sedation is mandatory for endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), there is no research investigating the effects of sedation on ESD performance and complications. We aimed to evaluate the relationship among sedation methods, clinical outcomes, and complications after ESD for gastric neoplasia. We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 1,367 patients with 1,485 lesions who had undergone ESD for gastric adenoma or early gastric cancer at our tertiary teaching hospital in Seoul, Korea, between January 2008 and May 2011. Of these, 1,035 lesions in 958 patients were included in the intermittent midazolam/propofol injection by endoscopists (IMIE) group, and 450 lesions in 409 patients were included in the continuous propofol infusion with opioid administration by anesthesiologists (CPIA) group. En bloc resection and complete resection rates were higher in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; en bloc resection, 99.8 and 95.0 %, P < 0.001; complete resection, 94.2 and 88.3 %, P < 0.001). Duration of procedure was shorter in the CPIA group than in the IMIE group (CPIA vs. IMIE; 48.2 ± 32.5 and 57.6 ± 41.3 min, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, sedation method was an independent factor associated with en bloc resection and complete resection. Additionally, sedation with CPIA was not a risk factor for bleeding (P = 0.403) or perforation (P = 0.474); however, aspiration pneumonia developed more frequently in patients sedated with CPIA (CPIA vs. IMIE, 4.4 and 1.5 %, P = 0.002). Sedation with CPIA can improve ESD performance.

Sedation methods can determine performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with gastric neoplasia.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Suji Shin

Author Tools

Chat about Author