Addressing Prognosis in Serious Illness

Timing of prognostic discussions in people with advanced cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Many people with cancer (patients) want to know their prognosis (a quantitative estimate of their life expectancy) but this is often not discussed or poorly communicated. The optimal timing of prognostic discussions with people with advanced cancer is highly personalised and complex. We aimed to find, organise, and summarise research regarding the timing of discussions of prognosis with people with advanced cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of publications from databases, clinical practice guidelines, and grey literature from inception to 2023. We also searched the reference lists of systematic reviews, editorials, and clinical trial registries. Eligibility criteria included publications regarding adults with advanced cancer that reported a timepoint when a discussion of prognosis occurred or should occur.

RESULTS

We included 63 of 798 identified references; most of which were cross-sectional cohort studies with a range of 4-9105 participants. Doctors and patients agreed on several timepoints including at diagnosis of advanced cancer, when the patient asked, upon disease progression, when there were no further anti-cancer treatments, and when recommending palliative care. Most of these timepoints aligned with published guidelines and expert recommendations. Other recommended timepoints depended on the doctor's clinical judgement, such as when the patient 'needed to know' or when the patient 'seemed ready'.

CONCLUSIONS

Prognostic discussions with people with advanced cancer need to be individualised, and there are several key timepoints when doctors should attempt to initiate these conversations. These recommended timepoints can inform clinical trial design and communication training for doctors to help improve prognostic understanding.

Futility and appropriateness: challenging words, important concepts

The provision of healthcare is being challenged by a 'perfect storm' of forces including an increasing population with multiple comorbidities, high expectations and resource limitations, and in the background, the pre-eminence of the 'curative medical model'. Non-beneficial (futile) treatments are wasteful and costly. They have a negative impact on quality of life especially in the last year of life. Among professionals, frequent encounters with futility cause moral distress and demoralisation. The factors that drive non-beneficial treatments include personal biases, patient-related pressures and institutional imperatives. Breaking loose from the perceived necessity to deliver non-beneficial treatment is a major challenge. Curative intent should give way to appropriateness such that curative and palliative interventions are valued equally. Goals of treatment should be shaped by illness trajectory, the risk of harms as well as potential benefits and patient preferences. This strategy should be reflected in professional training and the design of acute services.

Progressive respiratory disease: the importance of prognostic conversations and advance care planning

The “curative medical model” dominates medical decision-making, but in patients with advanced lung disease it can be redundant and even harmful. Clinicians are reluctant to abandon the traditional approach. However, a steady sea-change is under way not just for potentially life-limiting respiratory disease but also for other long-term conditions, such as heart failure. The sea-change is welcome, but it has been slow in coming for reasons that are complex and entrenched.

Prognostic conversations and advance care planning facilitate improved care in life-limiting respiratory conditionshttp://ow.ly/MOtp30fqPOw