The Effect of Disclosing Life Expectancy Information on Patients' Prognostic Understanding: Secondary Outcomes From a Multicenter Randomized Trial of a Palliative Chemotherapy Educational Intervention

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe.

DESIGN

Document content analysis.

SETTING

European Medicines Agency.

PARTICIPANTS

Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether written information on a product addressed patients' commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports).

RESULTS

29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

Accuracy of curability expectations in patients with gastrointestinal cancers

BACKGROUND

Assessment of illness and treatment understanding among cancer patients has largely focused on those with advanced disease. Less is known about patient expectations at earlier stages of cancer and potential modifiers of accurate understanding.

METHODS

We assessed accuracy of cure expectations in patients across all stages with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Accuracy was determined by independent reviews of patient health records by oncologists on the investigative team. Impact on cure accuracy of selected clinical variables and health-information preferences was analyzed.

RESULTS

Hundred and thirty five patients were included for analysis, with 100% interrater agreement for accuracy between oncologist reviewers. Sixety five patients (48%) had accurate cure expectations from their cancer treatment. Accuracy was lower in Stage IV versus Stage I-III disease (35% vs. 63%, p < 0.01), lower in unresectable versus resectable disease (35% vs. 67%, p < 0.01), and higher in patients with early-stage disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not (78% vs. 53%, p = 0.04). Accuracy did not differ by health-information preferences and remained stable over time. Of 63 patients who died, baseline accuracy differed by location of death (p = 0.03), with greater accuracy in those who died with home hospice (56%). Accuracy was lower in those who were hospitalized in the last 30 days of life versus those who were not (25% vs. 59%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Inaccurate cure expectations are prevalent across all stages of GI cancers, but particularly among those with metastatic or unresectable disease. High-quality, iterative communication strategies may facilitate patient illness and treatment understanding throughout the disease course.

Effects of an Oncology Nurse-Led, Primary Palliative Care Intervention (CONNECT) on Illness Expectations Among Patients With Advanced Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer often have unrealistic expectations about prognosis and treatment. This study assessed the effect of an oncology nurse-led primary palliative care intervention on illness expectations among patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized trial of primary palliative care conducted at 17 oncology clinics. Adult patients with advanced solid tumors for whom the oncologist would not be surprised if died within 1 year were enrolled. Monthly visits were designed to foster realistic illness expectations by eliciting patient concerns and goals for their medical care and empowering patients and families to engage in discussions with oncologists about treatment options and preferences. Baseline and 3-month questionnaires included questions about life expectancy, treatment intent, and terminal illness acknowledgment. Odds of realistic illness expectations at 3 months were adjusted for baseline responses, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, and intervention dose.

RESULTS

Among 457 primarily White patients, there was little difference in realistic illness expectations at 3 months between intervention and standard care groups: 12.8% v 11.4% for life expectancy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.59 to 2.22; P = .684); 24.6% v 33.3% for treatment intent (aOR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.27; P = .290); 53.6% v 44.7% for terminal illness acknowledgment (aOR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.00; P = .288). Results did not differ when accounting for variation in clinic sites or intervention dose.

CONCLUSION

Illness expectations are difficult to change among patients with advanced cancer. Additional work is needed to identify approaches within oncology practices that foster realistic illness expectations to improve patient decision making.

Routine follow-up care for head and neck cancer after curative treatment: A 3-year experience of measuring patients' self-reported needs, preferences, quality of life and attitudes towards follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and describe attitudes, quality of life (Qol), needs and preferences of patients with head and neck cancer after 3 years of follow-up care.

METHODS

This is an exploratory prospective study of recurrence-free patients. Survey results were compared between 1-, 2- and 3-year post-treatment and by disease characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were included with 46% oropharyngeal cancer, 66% early stage disease and 41% having had surgery. After 3 years, most patients reported good to excellent health (88%), however expressed uncertainty regarding recurrence (66%), multiple needs (information on prognosis 91%, long-term sequalae 72%) and wanted to continue with follow-up (96%). Few changes were observed over time, with exceptions. Patients with more advanced disease, oral cancer or who had surgery experienced declining Qol (p < 0.050). Women experienced improvements in Qol domains (pain p = 0.028, speech p = 0.009) over time. Attitudes towards communication with oncologists demonstrated improved patient comfort (p = 0.044) over the 3 years; however, patients' beliefs about their prognosis did not (71% vs. 73% vs. 77% did not believe they were cured, p = 0.581).

CONCLUSION

Although patients' needs, preferences and attitudes towards follow-up did not change drastically, important needs persist. This work supports identifying individual patient needs and the challenges in addressing prognostic expectations.

Interventions to Improve Prognostic Understanding in Advanced Stages of Life-Limiting Illness: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Among patients with advanced life-limiting illness, an inaccurate understanding of prognosis is common and associated with negative outcomes. Recent years have seen an emergence of new interventions tested for their potential to improve prognostic understanding. However, this literature has yet to be synthesized.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and characterize tested interventions, summarize intervention findings, and outline directions for future research.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in five databases - PubMed/MEDLINE (NLM), EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) - to identify interventions evaluated within a randomized controlled design for their impact on prognostic understanding.

RESULTS

Of the 2354 initial articles, 12 were selected for final inclusion, representing nine unique interventions. Intervention types included decision aids accompanying medical consults, palliative care consultations, communication training for patients and physicians, and targeted discussions regarding prognosis and treatment decision making. Common components of interventions included provision of prognostic information, assistance with end-of-life care planning, and provision of decisional and emotional support during discussions. Most interventions were associated with some indication of improvement in prognostic understanding. However, even after intervention, inaccurate prognostic understanding was common, with 31-95 percent of patients in intervention groups exhibiting inaccurate perceptions of their prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Prognostic understanding interventions hold the potential to improve patient understanding and thus informed decision making, but limitations exist. Future research should examine why many patients receiving intervention may continue to maintain inaccurate perceptions, and identify which intervention components can best enhance informed, value-consistent decision making.

'I Don't Have a Crystal Ball' - Why Do Doctors Tend to Avoid Prognostication?

Uncertainty, fear to harm the patient, discomfort handling the discussion and lack of time are the most cited barriers to prognostic disclosure. Physicians can be reassured that patients desire the truth about prognosis and can manage the discussion without harm, including the uncertainty of the information, if approached in a sensitive manner. Conversational guides could provide support in preparing such difficult conversations. Communicating 'with realism and hope' is possible, and anxiety is normal for both patients and clinicians during prognostic disclosure. As a clinician pointed out: 'I had asked a mentor once if it ever got easier. - No. But you get better at it.'

Informed consent for genetic testing in hematology

Informed consent is a fundamental component of modern health care. All competent adult patients have the legal and ethical authority to accept (consent) or refuse (dissent) recommended health-related interventions. Various models of informed consent have been described, and herein I introduce a model that divides informed consent into 7 distinct elements: competence, voluntariness, disclosure, recommendation, understanding, decision, and authorization. Genetic testing, which is rapidly becoming a common feature of both clinical care and research in hematology, adds additional layers of complexity to each of these consent elements. Using the example case of Mr. Smith, a man with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia whose clinicians offer him genetic testing of the leukemia through a clinical trial, I highlight the challenges and controversies of informed consent for genetic testing, focusing on each consent element as it pertains to genetic testing in such a setting. Ultimately, given the growing importance of genetic testing for hematologic disorders, clinicians, and researchers in hematology should be facile at participating in all aspects of informed consent for genetic testing.