nach oben

Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer

Erschienen in:

03.11.2022 | Original Research

Evaluating the Quality of Online Information Regarding Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer

verfasst von: Lena Stevens, Marissa Guo, Zachary J. Brown, Aslam Ejaz, Timothy M. Pawlik, Jordan M. Cloyd

Erschienen in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer | Ausgabe 3/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is increasingly utilized for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients with cancer have high information needs and the Internet has materialized as a leading source of information for many patients. Nevertheless, little is known about the availability, accessibility, quality, and readability of online information regarding NT for PDAC.

Methods

A search of online patient informational materials (PIMs) pertaining to NT for PDAC was conducted using a combination of common search engines and browsers. Two independent researchers evaluated the readability, quality, and availability of unique PIMs from the top 25 websites from each search using validated measures.

Results

Among the 130 websites retrieved, 46 (35.4%) unique PIMs focused on treatment of PDAC. Only 30 (23%) mentioned NT as a possible treatment option. Downstaging was the rationale for NT mentioned in the majority (90%) of websites. The mean quality and reliability of the 30 PIMs, assessed using the DISCERN instrument, was 3.3 ± 0.7, suggesting moderate quality/reliability. The mean readability score, assessed using the SMOG Grade tool, was 10.96 ± 1.49, which is equivalent to an 11th grade reading level.

Conclusion

The low availability, poor readability, and moderate quality of online informational materials regarding NT for PDAC highlight the need for new patient-centered resources to educate patients and caregivers on an increasingly utilized treatment strategy for localized PDAC.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708.

Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Bassi C, Dunn JA, Hickey H, Beger H, et al. A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(12):1200–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa032295.CrossRefPubMed

Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, Gellert K, Langrehr J, Ridwelski K, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297(3):267–77. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.3.267.CrossRefPubMed

Cloyd JM, Shen C, Santry H, Bridges J, Dillhoff M, Ejaz A, et al. Disparities in the use of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. JNCCN J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(5):556–63. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.7380.CrossRefPubMed

Aquina CT, Ejaz A, Tsung A, Pawlik TM, Cloyd JM. National trends in the use of neoadjuvant therapy before cancer surgery in the US from 2004 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3): e211031. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1031.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Davis CH, Beane JD, Gazivoda VP, Grandhi MS, Greenbaum AA, Kennedy TJ, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: increased use and improved optimal outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2022;234(4):436–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/xcs.0000000000000095.CrossRefPubMed

Brown ZJ, Cloyd JM. Trends in the utilization of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2021;123(6):1432–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.26384.CrossRefPubMed

Cloyd JM, Heh V, Pawlik TM, Ejaz A, Dillhoff M, Tsung A et al. Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med. 2020;9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041129.

Jang JY, Han Y, Lee H, Kim SW, Kwon W, Lee KH, et al. Oncological benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiation with gemcitabine versus upfront surgery in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 2/3 trial. Ann Surg. 2018;268(2):215–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002705.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Versteijne E, Suker M, Groothuis K, Akkermans-Vogelaar JM, Besselink MG, Bonsing BA, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: results of the dutch randomized phase III PREOPANC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(16):1763–73. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02274.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Oba A, Ho F, Bao QR, Al-Musawi MH, Schulick RD, Del Chiaro M. Neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;10:245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00245.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Schreiber L, Zeh R, Monsour C, Ejaz A, Tsung A, Pawlik TM, et al. Multi-specialty physician perspectives on barriers and facilitators to the use of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. HPB. 2022;24(6):833–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2021.10.010.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Stevens L, Brown ZJ, Zeh R, Monsour C, Wells-Di Gregorio S, Santry H, et al. Characterizing the patient experience during neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a qualitative study. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;14(6):1175–86. https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v14.i6.1175.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

United States Census Bureau. Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2018. United States Census Bureau 2021. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/computer-internet-use.html#:~:text=Among%20all%20households%20in%202018,devices%20and%20single%2Dboard%20computers.

15.

Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information, Pew Research Center. 2011. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/05/12/the-social-life-of-health-information-2011/.

16.

Benda NC, Veinot TC, Sieck CJ, Ancker JS. Broadband Internet access is a social determinant of health! Am J Public Health. 2020;110(8):1123–5. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Huang J, Han Y, Wei J, Liu X, Du Y, Yang L, et al. The effectiveness of the Internet-based self-management program for cancer-related fatigue patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(3):287–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519889394.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Weiss BD. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians American Medical Association Foundation and American Medical Association. 2003.

20.

Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor-Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc. 1997;277(15):1244–5.

21.

De Groot L, Harris I, Regehr G, Tekian A, Ingledew PA. Quality of online resources for pancreatic cancer patients. J Cancer Educ. 2019;34(2):223–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1290-8.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Storino A, Castillo-Angeles M, Watkins AA, Vargas C, Mancias JD, Bullock A, et al. Assessing the accuracy and readability of online health information for patients with pancreatic cancer. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):831–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0730.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Statcounter. Search Engine Market Share United States Of America. Statcounter 2021. https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/united-states-of-america/2021.

24.

Vailshery LS. U.S. desktop internet browsers market share 2015–2021. Statista. 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272697/market-share-desktop-internet-browser-usa/#:~:text=The%20most%20popular%20current%20browsers,%2C%20Microsoft%20Edge%2C%20and%20Firefox.

25.

Ley P, Florio T. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med. 1996;1(1):7–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548509608400003.CrossRef

26.

Mc Laughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read. 1969;12(8):639–46.

27.

Readability Formulas. How to use the SMOG readability formula on health literacy materials. Readability Formulas. 2022. https://readabilityformulas.com/articles/how-to-use-smog-readability-formulas-on-health-literacy-materials.php.

28.

Readability Formulas. The Flesch reading ease readability formula. Readability Formulas. 2022. https://readabilityformulas.com/flesch-reading-ease-readability-formula.php.

29.

Ziebland S, Chapple A, Dumelow C, Evans J, Prinjha S, Rozmovits L. How the Internet affects patients’ experience of cancer: a qualitative study. BMJ: Br Med J. 2004;328(7439):564. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7439.564.

30.

Elkin N. How America searches: health and wellness. Internet: iCrossing. 2008.

31.

Chua GP, Ng QS, Tan HK, Ong WS. Cancer survivors: what are their information seeking behaviours? J Cancer Educ. 2020;36(6):1237–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01756-8.CrossRef

32.

Hutchinson N, Baird GL, Garg M. Examining the reading level of internet medical information for common internal medicine diagnoses. Am J Med. 2016;129(6):637–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.008.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Eltorai AE, Ghanian S, Adams CA Jr, Born CT, Daniels AH. Readability of patient education materials on the american association for surgery of trauma website. Arch Trauma Res. 2014;3(2).

34.

Tangri V, Chande N. Quality of Internet-based information on gastrointestinal diseases. Can J Gastroenterol. 2011;25(2):93–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/345076.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Charow R, Snow M, Fathima S, Giuliani ME, McEwan K, Winegust J, et al. Evaluation of the scope, quality, and health literacy demand of Internet-based anal cancer information. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Sajid MS, Iftikhar M, Monteiro RS, Miles AFW, Woods WGA, Baig MK. Internet information on colorectal cancer: commercialization and lack of quality control. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(4):352–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01316.x.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Kunst H, Groot D, Latthe PM, Latthe M, Khan KS. Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: survey of five common health topics. BMJ: Br Med J. 2002;324(7337):581–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.581.

38.

Cloyd JM, Tsung A, Hays J, Wills CE, Bridges JF. Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: the need for patient-centered research. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(4):375–82. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i4.375.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Hamad A, Crossnohere N, Ejaz A, Tsung A, Pawlik TM, Sarna A, et al. Patient preferences for neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Pancreas. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1097/mpa.0000000000002083.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Tariman JD, Berry DL, Cochrane B, Doorenbos A, Schepp K. Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(6):1145–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp534.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Ndugga N, Artiga S. Disparities in health and health care: 5 key questions and answers. 2021.

Titel: Evaluating the Quality of Online Information Regarding Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer
verfasst von: Lena Stevens
Marissa Guo
Zachary J. Brown
Aslam Ejaz
Timothy M. Pawlik
Jordan M. Cloyd
Publikationsdatum: 03.11.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer / Ausgabe 3/2023
Print ISSN: 1941-6628
Elektronische ISSN: 1941-6636
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-022-00879-z

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Evaluating the Quality of Online Information Regarding Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Blutdrucksenkung könnte Uterusmyome verhindern

Alphablocker schützt vor Miktionsproblemen nach der Biopsie

Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugat hält solide Tumoren in Schach

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

Update Onkologie

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2023

A Seed in the Soil — Isolated Esophageal Cancer Recurrence in the Brain After Trimodality Treatment is more Common than Expected but Associated with Better Outcomes

Post-Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Rate in a Tertiary Referral Centre: An Australian Data Linkage Analysis

Incidence of Brain Metastasis as First Event in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma: a Report from Three Prospective Alliance Clinical Trials

Pathological Complete Response to Nivolumab, S1, Oxaliplatin, and Radiation in a Patient with Gastric Cancer: a Case Report

Retrospective Evaluation of the Impact of Dose Escalation Using Pre-operative Simultaneous Integrated Boost Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy on the Outcome of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients

Validation of the Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer (NAR) Score for Prognostication Following Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT) for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Blutdrucksenkung könnte Uterusmyome verhindern

Alphablocker schützt vor Miktionsproblemen nach der Biopsie

Antikörper-Wirkstoff-Konjugat hält solide Tumoren in Schach

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

Update Onkologie