How long do I have? Observational study on communication about life expectancy with advanced cancer patients

"You'll need to settle your affairs": How the subject of death is approached by oncologists and advanced cancer patients in follow-up consultations

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative study aimed to investigate communication about death in consultations with patients undergoing chemotherapy with no curative intent. Specifically, we examined (i) how the topic of death was approached, who raised it, in what way, and which responses were elicited, (ii) how the topic unfolded during consultations, and (iii) whether interaction patterns or distinguishing ways of communicating can be identified.

METHODS

The data consisted of 134 audio-recorded follow-up consultations. A framework of sensitizing concepts was developed, and interaction patterns were looked for when death was discussed.

RESULTS

The subject of death and dying was most often initiated by patients, and they raised it in various ways. In most consultations, direct talk about death was initiated only once. We identified 4 interaction patterns. The most frequent consists of indirect references to death by patients, followed by a direct mention of the death of a loved one, and a statement of the oncologists aiming to skip the subject.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Patients and oncologists have multiple ways of raising, pursuing, addressing and evacuating the subject of death. Being attentive and recognizing these ways and associated interaction patterns can help oncologists to think and elaborate on this topic and to facilitate discussions.

Effects of Prognostic Communication Strategies on Prognostic Perceptions, Treatment Decisions and End-Of-Life Anticipation in Advanced Cancer: An Experimental Study among Analogue Patients

CONTEXT

Evidence-based guidance for oncologists on how to communicate prognosis is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of prognostic communication strategies (prognostic disclosure vs. communication of unpredictability vs. non-disclosure; standard vs. standard and best-case vs. standard, best- and worst-case survival scenarios; numerical vs. word-based estimates) on prognostic perceptions, treatment decision-making and end-of-life anticipation in advanced cancer.

METHODS

This experimental study used eight videos of a scripted oncological consultation, varying only in prognostic communication strategies. Cancer-naive individuals, who imagined being the depicted patient, completed surveys before and after watching one video (n = 1036).

RESULTS

Individuals generally perceived dying within 1 year as more likely after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001), and after numerical versus word-based estimates (P < 0.001). Individuals felt better informed about prognosis to decide about treatment after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001); after communication of unpredictability versus non-disclosure (P < 0.001); and after numerical versus word-based estimates (P = 0.017). Chemotherapy was more often favored after prognostic disclosure versus non-disclosure (P = 0.010), but less often after numerical versus word-based estimates (P < 0.001). Individuals felt more certain about the treatment decision after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001). Effects of different survival scenarios were absent. No effects on end-of-life anticipation were observed. Evidence for moderating individual characteristics was limited.

CONCLUSION

If and how oncologists discuss prognosis can influence how individuals perceive prognosis, which treatment they prefer, and how they feel about treatment decisions. Communicating numerical estimates may stimulate prognostic understanding and informed treatment decision-making.

Effects of prognostic communication strategies on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations: An experimental study in advanced cancer

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate effects of prognostic communication strategies on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations in advanced cancer.

METHODS

For this experimental study, we created 8 videos of a scripted oncological consultation, only varying in prognostic communication strategies. Disease-naive individuals (n = 1036) completed surveys before and after watching 1 video, while imagining being the depicted cancer patient. We investigated effects of the type of disclosure (prognostic disclosure vs. communication of unpredictability vs. non-disclosure) and content of disclosure (standard vs. standard and best-case vs. standard, best- and worst-case survival scenarios; numerical vs. word-based estimates) on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations. Moderating effects of individual characteristics were tested.

RESULTS

Participants generally reported more satisfaction (p < .001) after prognostic disclosure versus communication of unpredictability and less uncertainty (p = .042), more satisfaction (p = .005), and more desirability (p = .016) regarding prognostic information after numerical versus word-based estimates. Effects of different survival scenarios were absent. Prognostic communication strategies lacked effects on emotions and coping. Significant moderators included prognostic information preference and uncertainty tolerance.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

In an experimental setting, prognostic disclosure does not cause more negative emotions than non-disclosure and numerical estimates are more strongly appreciated than words. Oncologists' worries about harming patients should not preclude disclosing (precise) prognostic information, yet sensitivity to individual preferences and characteristics remains pivotal.

Question prompt list intervention for patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced communication in end-of-life care (EOL) improves preparation and treatment decisions for patients with advanced cancer, affecting their quality of life at the end of life. Question prompt list (QPL) has been shown to enhance physician-patient communication in patients with cancer, but there is a lack of systematic review and meta-analysis for those with advanced cancer. Enhanced communication in end-of-life care improves preparation and treatment decisions for patients with advanced cancer, affecting their quality of life at the end of life.

OBJECTIVE

To review the effectiveness of QPL intervention on physician-patient communication and health outcomes during consultation in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases were undertaken using inclusion criteria for relevant articles up to August 2021. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool and modified Jadad scale to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 1059 participants were included, of which six studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled meta-analysis results indicated that QPL in patients with advanced cancer had a significant positive effect on the total number of questions asked (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.18; I2 = 83%) and on the patients' expectations for the future (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.25; I2 = 88%). There were no significant improvements in health-related outcomes such as end of life, anxiety, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Using QPL in advanced cancer consultations boosts patient questions which helps communication but not health-related indicators. Optimal results depend on full reading, but timing varies. Future research should examine the relationship between communication and health outcomes, including patient/physician behavior and social context.

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.

Effect of a prediction tool and communication skills training on communication of treatment outcomes: a multicenter stepped wedge clinical trial (the SOURCE trial)

Background

For cancer patients to effectively engage in decision making, they require comprehensive and understandable information regarding treatment options and their associated outcomes. We developed an online prediction tool and supporting communication skills training to assist healthcare providers (HCPs) in this complex task. This study aims to assess the impact of this combined intervention (prediction tool and training) on the communication practices of HCPs when discussing treatment options.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter intervention trial using a pragmatic stepped wedge design (NCT04232735). Standardized Patient Assessments (simulated consultations) using cases of esophageal and gastric cancer patients, were performed before and after the combined intervention (March 2020 to July 2022). Audio recordings were analyzed using an observational coding scale, rating all utterances of treatment outcome information on the primary outcome-precision of provided outcome information-and on secondary outcomes-such as: personalization, tailoring and use of visualizations. Pre vs. post measurements were compared in order to assess the effect of the intervention.

Findings

31 HCPs of 11 different centers in the Netherlands participated. The tool and training significantly affected the precision of the overall communicated treatment outcome information (p = 0.001, median difference 6.93, IQR (-0.32 to 12.44)). In the curative setting, survival information was significantly more precise after the intervention (p = 0.029). In the palliative setting, information about side effects was more precise (p < 0.001).

Interpretation

A prediction tool and communication skills training for HCPs improves the precision of treatment information on outcomes in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such interventions on communication in clinical practice and on patient-reported outcomes.

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society (UVA 2014-7000).

What outcomes do studies use to measure the impact of prognostication on people with advanced cancer? Findings from a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer patients vary in the outcomes they measure, and there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are most important.

AIM

To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022).

DATA SOURCES

Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients' and informal caregivers' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion.

RESULTS

We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use.

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders' priorities.

Performance of the Palliative Prognostic Index for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinician predicted survival for cancer patients is often inaccurate, and prognostic tools may be helpful, such as the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI). The PPI development study reported that when PPI score is greater than 6, it predicted survival of less than 3 weeks with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%. When PPI score is greater than 4, it predicts survival of less than 6 weeks with a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 77%. However, subsequent PPI validation studies have evaluated various thresholds and survival durations, and it is unclear which is most appropriate for use in clinical practice. With the development of numerous prognostic tools, it is also unclear which is most accurate and feasible for use in multiple care settings.

AIM

We evaluated PPI model performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients based on different thresholds and survival durations and compared it to other prognostic tools.

DESIGN

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302679). We calculated the pooled sensitivity and specificity of each threshold using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and pooled diagnostic odds ratio of each survival duration using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to compare PPI performance with clinician predicted survival and other prognostic tools. Findings which could not be included in meta-analyses were summarised narratively.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL, ProQuest and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from inception till 7 January 2022. Both retrospective and prospective observational studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients in any setting were included. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality appraisal.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients were included (n = 19,714 patients). Across meta-analyses of 12 PPI score thresholds and survival durations, we found that PPI was most accurate for predicting survival of <3 weeks and <6 weeks. Survival prediction of <3 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>6 (pooled sensitivity = 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.75, specificity = 0.80, 95% CI 0.75-0.85). Survival prediction of <6 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>4 (pooled sensitivity = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.78, specificity = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.80). Comparative meta-analyses found that PPI performed similarly to Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score in predicting <3-week survival, but less accurately in <30-day survival prediction. However, Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score only provide <30-day survival probabilities, and it is uncertain how this would be helpful for patients and clinicians. PPI also performed similarly to clinician predicted survival in predicting <30-day survival. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution as limited studies were available for comparative meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for all studies, mainly due to poor reporting of statistical analyses. while there were low applicability concerns for most (38/39) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

PPI score>6 should be used for <3-week survival prediction, and PPI score>4 for <6-week survival. PPI is easily scored and does not require invasive tests, and thus would be easily implemented in multiple care settings. Given the acceptable accuracy of PPI in predicting <3- and <6-week survival and its objective nature, it could be used to cross-check clinician predicted survival especially when clinicians have doubts about their own judgement, or when clinician estimates seem to be less reliable. Future studies should adhere to the reporting guidelines and provide comprehensive analyses of PPI model performance.

Developing a Core Outcome Set for Prognostic Research in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Studies exploring the impact of receiving end-of-life prognoses in patients with advanced cancer use a variety of different measures to evaluate the outcomes, and thus report often conflicting findings. The standardization of outcomes reported in studies of prognostication in palliative cancer care could enable uniform assessment and reporting, as well as intertrial comparisons. A core outcome set promotes consistency in outcome selection and reporting among studies within a particular population. We aim to develop a set of core outcomes to be used to measure the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol outlines the proposed methodology to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care.

METHODS

We will adopt a mixed methods approach consisting of 3 phases using methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measure in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. In phase I, we will conduct a systematic review to identify existing outcomes that prognostic studies have previously used, so as to inform the development of items and domains for the proposed core outcome set. Phase II will consist of semistructured interviews with patients with advanced cancer who are receiving palliative care, informal caregivers, and clinicians, to explore their perceptions and experiences of end-of-life prognostication. Outcomes identified in the interviews will be combined with those found in existing literature and taken forward to phase III, a Delphi survey, in which we will ask patients, informal caregivers, clinicians, and relevant researchers to rate these outcomes until consensus is achieved as to which are considered to be the most important for inclusion in the core outcome set. The resulting, prioritized outcomes will be discussed in a consensus meeting to agree and endorse the final core outcome set.

RESULTS

Ethical approval was received for this study in September 2022. As of July 2023, we have completed and published the systematic review (phase I) and have started recruitment for phase II. Data analysis for phase II has not yet started. We expect to complete the study by October 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol presents the stepwise approach that will be taken to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. The final core outcome set has the potential for translation into clinical practice, allowing for consistent evaluation of emerging prognostic algorithms and improving communication of end-of-life prognostication. This study will also potentially facilitate the design of future clinical trials of the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative care that are acceptable to key stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials 2136; https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2136.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/49774.

Clinicians' and Advanced Cancer Patients' Estimates of Treatment Efficacy and Toxicity in Oncologic Treatment

The purpose of the study was to compare curability expectations between clinicians and patients and examine the influence of sociodemographic and clinical variables on these expectations and satisfaction within the clinician-patient relationship. This prospective study, conducted from February 2020 to May 2023, involved 986 advanced cancer patients. The patients completed questionnaires assessing treatment efficacy and toxicity predictions and the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship (STAR). Seventy-four percent of advanced cancer patients had an inaccurate perception of treatment curability. Clinicians perceived male patients with lung or digestive cancer without adenocarcinoma at locally advanced stages, with fewer comorbidities and better functional status (ECOG), as having higher curability expectations. Clinicians tended to have more realistic expectations than patients, since they had to consider the presence of treatment's side effects, while patients underestimated the possibility of experiencing these adverse effects. Patients who had more favorable expectations regarding survival and quality of life were found to be more satisfied with the care provided by their oncologists. It is crucial for patients to understand the treatment goals and establish realistic expectations in order to actively participate in decision-making and achieve a better quality of life at the end of life.

The decisional balance, attitudes, and practice behaviors, its predicting factors, and related experiences of advance care planning in Taiwanese patients with advanced cancer

Background

Patients with advanced cancer are prone to experience burdensome physical, psychological, and financial consequences. Healthcare providers may not fully appreciate advanced cancer patients’ medical care autonomy, such as at that emboded by Advance Care Planning (ACP), and by doing so may compromise their quality of end-of-life (EOL). Hence, it is essential for healthcare providers to effectively assess and communicate with patients’ regarding their medical decisions before their patients are incapacitated by their disease progression. The purpose of this investigation was to describe the decisional balance, attitudes, and practice behaviors of ACP and its predictors of ACP-related experiences in Taiwanese patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

This cross-sectional, descriptive study employed a mixed-methodsquantitative and qualitative design with a sample of 166 patients that were purposely recruited from in-patient oncology units at a regional teaching hospital in southern Taiwan. Study data consisted of patient replies to a 34-item self-report tool, Decisional Balance, Attitudes, Practice Behaviors of ACP (DAP-ACP) and 4 semi-structured questions.

Result

Findings indicated that, in general, study participants exhibited favorable ACP-decisional balance and positive ACP-attitudes & practice behaviors. The results also indicated that gender, educational level, and cancer diagnosis were associated with significant differences on the “ACP-decisional balance” and “ACP-attitudes” scales. In addition, our findings documented that the participants’ gender and educational level were significant predictors of both ACP-decisional balance and ACP-attitudes. Furthermore the participants’ ACP-practice behaviors were predicted by ACP-decisional balance, but not with their ACP-attitudes. The qualitative analysis of the semi-structured questions identified six themes in responses to current medical decision making (e.g., compliance with physician instructions, family engagement in treatment decision-making); and eight themes pertaining to future ACP-related concerns were identified (e.g., family conflict, effectiveness of time-limited trials).

Conclusion

To promote patients’ engagement in ACP, the healthcare professional need to assess and advocate patients’ concerns or attitudes regarding ACP in a timely manner. In addition, factors or concerns that might influence patients’ responses to ACP derived from both the quantitative and qualitative findings of this current study need to be considered especially in initiating the dialogue regarding ACP with patients with advanced cancer.

Trial registration

No. CYCH 2,019,072, Date of registration 5 Dec 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-022-01073-5.

Oncology nurse perceptions about life expectancy discussions: a cross-sectional study exploring what patients want to know, and why doctors don't disclose

Background: Sensitive and patient-centred discussion about life expectancy has clear benefits for patients with advanced cancer and their families. The perceptions of oncology nurses about disclosure of life expectancy, and the barriers to disclosure, have rarely been explored. Objectives/Aims/Hypotheses: To examine oncology nurses' perceptions of the: (1) proportion of patients with advanced cancer who want, receive and understand estimates of life expectancy; (2) reasons why doctors may not provide estimates of life expectancy. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Australian oncology nurses who were members of a professional society or worked at a participating metropolitan cancer centre were emailed a link to an anonymous online survey. Participants provided socio-demographic characteristics and their perceptions about the proportion of patients with advanced cancer who (a) want, (b) are provided with, (c) receive and (d) understand estimates of life expectancy, as well as the reasons estimates of life expectancy may not be provided. Results: A total of 104 nurses participated. While 51% of nurses perceived that most patients (>75%) want to be provided with an estimate of their life expectancy, 63% of nurses reported that <50% of patients were provided with an estimate. Further, 85% of nurses indicated that <50% of patients understand the estimate. The most frequent reason nurses perceived doctors did not provide an estimate of life expectancy was because the doctor didn't have an accurate idea of life expectancy (80.8%). Almost one-fifth of nurses (18.3%) thought that doctors did not provide estimates because they felt it was not their responsibility to do so. Conclusions: Strategies to ensure a patient-centred approach to life expectancy discussions with patients with advanced cancer are urgently needed. Impact statement: Oncology nurses perceive that many patients with advanced cancer are not provided with an accurate estimate of their life expectancy and few understand the information provided to them.

Characteristics of patients with advanced cancer preferring not to know prognosis: a multicenter survey study

Background

For some patients with advanced cancer not knowing prognosis is essential. Yet, in an era of informed decision-making, the potential protective function of unawareness is easily overlooked. We aimed to investigate 1) the proportion of advanced cancer patients preferring not to know prognosis; 2) the reasons underlying patients’ prognostic information preference; 3) the characteristics associated with patients’ prognostic information preference; and 4) the concordance between physicians’ perceived and patients’ actual prognostic information preference.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study with structured surveys (PROSPECT). Medical and thoracic oncologists included patients (n = 524), from seven Dutch hospitals, with metastatic/inoperable cancer and an expected median overall survival of ≤ 12 months. For analysis, descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used.

Results

Twenty-five to 31% of patients preferred not to know a general life expectancy estimate or the 5/2/1-year mortality risk. Compared to patients preferring to know prognosis, patients preferring unawareness more often reported optimism, avoidance and inability to comprehend information as reasons for wanting limited information; and less often reported expectations of others, anxiety, autonomy and a sense of control as reasons for wanting complete information. Females (p < .05), patients receiving a further line of systemic treatment (p < .01) and patients with strong fighting spirit (p < .001) were more likely to prefer not to know prognosis. Concordance between physicians’ perceived and patients’ actual prognostic information preference was poor (kappa = 0.07).

Conclusions

We encourage physicians to explore patients’ prognostic information preferences and the underlying reasons explicitly, enabling individually tailored communication. Future studies may investigate changes in patients’ prognostic information preferences over time and examine the impact of prognostic disclosure on patients who prefer unawareness.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09911-8.

Prognostic communication about lung cancer in the precision oncology era: A multiple-perspective qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Although most patients with cancer prefer to know their prognosis, prognostic communication between oncologists and patients is often insufficient. Targeted therapies for lung cancer improve survival yet are not curative and produce variable responses. This study sought to describe how oncologists communicate about prognosis with patients receiving targeted therapies for lung cancer.

METHODS

This qualitative study included 39 patients with advanced lung cancer with targetable mutations, 14 caregivers, and 10 oncologists. Semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers and focus groups or interviews with oncologists were conducted to explore their experiences with prognostic communication. One oncology follow-up visit was audio-recorded per patient. A framework approach was used to analyze interview transcripts, and a content analysis of patient-oncologist dialogue was conducted. Themes were identified within each source and then integrated across sources to create a multidimensional description of prognostic communication.

RESULTS

Six themes in prognostic communication were identified: Patients with targetable mutations develop a distinct identity in the lung cancer community that affects their information-seeking and self-advocacy; oncologists set high expectations for targeted therapy; the uncertain availability of new therapies complicates prognostic discussions; patients and caregivers have variable information preferences; patients raise questions about progression by asking about physical symptoms or scan results; and patients' expectations of targeted therapy influence their medical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimistic patient-oncologist communication shapes the expectations of patients receiving targeted therapy for lung cancer and affects their decision-making. Further research and clinical guidance are needed to help oncologists to communicate uncertain outcomes effectively.

Association of Prognostic Understanding With Health Care Use Among Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

A poor prognostic understanding regarding curability is associated with lower odds of hospice use among patients with cancer. However, the association between poor prognostic understanding or prognostic discordance and health care use among older adults with advanced incurable cancers is not well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of poor prognostic understanding and patient-oncologist prognostic discordance with hospitalization and hospice use among older adults with advanced cancers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a post hoc secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial that recruited patients from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Data were collected from community oncology practices affiliated with the University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. The parent trial enrolled 541 patients who were aged 70 years or older and were receiving or considering any line of cancer treatment for incurable solid tumors or lymphomas; the patients' oncologists and caregivers (if available) were also enrolled. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Data were analyzed from January 3 to 16, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

At enrollment, patients and oncologists were asked about their beliefs regarding cancer curability (100%, >50%, 50%, <50%, and 0%; answers other than 0% reflected poor prognostic understanding) and life expectancy (≤6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, 2-5 years, and >5 years; answers of >5 years reflected poor prognostic understanding). Any difference between oncologist and patient in response options was considered discordant. Outcomes were any hospitalization and hospice use at 6 months captured by the clinical research associates.

RESULTS

Among the 541 patients, the mean (SD) age was 76.6 (5.2) years, 264 of 540 (49%) were female, and 486 of 540 (90%) were White. Poor prognostic understanding regarding curability was reported for 59% (206 of 348) of patients, and poor prognostic understanding regarding life expectancy estimates was reported for 41% (205 of 496) of patients. Approximately 60% (202 of 336) of patient-oncologist dyads were discordant regarding curability, and 72% (356 of 492) of patient-oncologist dyads were discordant regarding life expectancy estimates. Poor prognostic understanding regarding life expectancy estimates was associated with lower odds of hospice use (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59). Discordance regarding life expectancy estimates was associated with greater odds of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.01-2.66).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study highlights different constructs of prognostic understanding and the need to better understand the association between prognostic understanding and health care use among older adult patients with advanced cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02107443.

Helping Patients Communicate With Oncologists When Cancer Treatment Resistance Occurs to Develop, Test, and Implement a Patient Communication Aid: Sequential Collaborative Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Most cancer-related deaths result from disseminated diseases that develop resistance to anticancer treatments. Inappropriate communication in this challenging situation may result in unmet patient information and support needs. Patient communication aids such as question prompt lists (QPLs) may help.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop and pilot-test a specific QPL in the following two contrasting clinical contexts in France after cancer resistance has developed: triple-negative and luminal B metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM).

METHODS

A sequential study design with a mixed methods collaborative approach will be applied. The first step aims to build a specific QPL. Step 1a will explore oncologist-patient communication issues from oncology professionals' interviews (n=20 approximately). Step 1b will appraise information and support needs experienced by patients with MBC or MUM both quantitatively (n=80) and qualitatively (n=40 approximately). These data will be used to develop and pilot-test a QPL specific to patients with cancer experiencing initial or acquired resistance to treatment. We expect to obtain a core QPL that comprises questions and concerns commonly expressed by patients with resistant cancer and is complemented by specific issues for either MBC or MUM cancer sites. In step 1c, 2 focus groups of patients with any type of metastatic cancer (n=4) and health care professionals (n=4) will be conducted to revise the content of a preliminary QPL and elaborate an acceptable and feasible clinical implementation. In step 1d, the content of the QPL version 1 and implementation guidance will be validated using a Delphi process. Step 2 will pilot-test the QPL version 1 in real practice with patients with MBC or MUM (n=80). Clinical utility will be assessed by comparing responses to questionnaires administered in step 1b (QPL-naive historical control group) and step 2 (QPL intervention group).

RESULTS

This study received grants in March and December 2019 and was approved by the French national ethics committee in July 2019. As of October 2021, interviews with oncology professionals have been conducted and analyzed (N=26 to reach saturation), and 39 and 27 patients with MBC and MUM, respectively, have been recruited.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinically and culturally tailored QPL is expected to facilitate patients' participation in consultations, improve oncologists' responses to patients' information and support needs, and thus foster patients' psychological adjustment to the diagnosis and follow-up of cancer resistance to treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118062; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04118062.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26414.

'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.'

Facing epistemic and complex uncertainty in serious illness: The role of mindfulness and shared mind

BACKGROUND

Epistemic uncertainty refers to situations in which available evidence is insufficient or unreliable, often accompanied by complexity due to novel contexts, multifactorial causation, and emerging options (the "unknowable unknown"). It stands in contrast to aleatory uncertainty where probabilities are known, and potential benefits and harms can be calculated and presented graphically (the "knowable unknown").

DISCUSSION

Epistemic uncertainty is common, and encompasses uncertainty about the nature of the illness, whom to entrust with one's care, and one's ability to adapt and cope. Communication about the "unknowable unknown" occurs infrequently and ineffectively, and there is little research on improving communication in the face of epistemic and complex uncertainty. Terror Management Theory (TMT) predicts that in encountering serious illness, people engage in "worldview defense" - suppressing death-related thoughts, affiliating with like-minded others, and developing cognitive rigidity and intolerance of information that challenges their worldview. Mindfulness is associated with diminished defensive worldview reactions and cognitive rigidity, and greater tolerance of ambiguity. Shared mind encompasses shared understanding and affective attunement.

CONCLUSION

For clinicians and seriously ill patients facing epistemic uncertainty, psychologically-informed interventions that promote mindfulness and shared mind offer promise in promoting open discussions regarding prognostic uncertainty, advance care planning, and treatment decision-making.

Oncologists' experience with discussing cancer prognosis with patients and families: perspectives from India

Nondisclosure of prognosis of advanced cancer is commonly practiced in some Asian cultures including India; but research is limited. To describe experiences of Indian oncologists in discussing cancer prognosis with people with cancer and their caregivers, with a focus on barriers and facilitators of prognostic discussions. Thirty oncologists practicing in South India, Hyderabad participated in semi-structured interviews; and analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Barriers included system-level, patient-level, and physician-level challenges as obstructions to open and honest interactions around cancer prognosis. Most of the barriers focused on communication-related challenges. Lack of communication skills training for providers coupled with over-reliance on use of euphemisms, hesitation in communicating with "weak" patient, and struggles to establish healthcare proxy described communication-related barriers. The study also described factors including family involvement in cancer care and empathic communication as facilitators of honest and open communication about prognosis. In particular, rapport building and getting to know the patient, use of empathic communication, engaging in gradual and individualized disclosure, and balancing hope with honesty were communication-related facilitators that aid open communication with patients with cancer and their caregivers about prognosis and plan of care. Results provide implications for development of communication skills trainings for oncology physicians in India. Adapting, delivering, and evaluating existing communication skills training programs, particularly around discussions of prognosis and goals of care is a requisite step for providing patient-centered and supportive care to patients with cancer and their caregiving families.

Development and Evaluation of a Real-World Outcomes-Based Tool to Support Informed Clinical Decision Making in the Palliative Treatment of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC

PURPOSE

To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting.

METHODS

A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs.

RESULTS

From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved.

Informing Patients With Esophagogastric Cancer About Treatment Outcomes by Using a Web-Based Tool and Training: Development and Evaluation Study

Background

Due to the increasing use of shared decision-making, patients with esophagogastric cancer play an increasingly important role in the decision-making process. To be able to make well-informed decisions, patients need to be adequately informed about treatment options and their outcomes, namely survival, side effects or complications, and health-related quality of life. Web-based tools and training programs can aid physicians in this complex task. However, to date, none of these instruments are available for use in informing patients with esophagogastric cancer about treatment outcomes.

Objective

This study aims to develop and evaluate the feasibility of using a web-based prediction tool and supporting communication skills training to improve how physicians inform patients with esophagogastric cancer about treatment outcomes. By improving the provision of treatment outcome information, we aim to stimulate the use of information that is evidence-based, precise, and personalized to patient and tumor characteristics and is communicated in a way that is tailored to individual information needs.

Methods

We designed a web-based, physician-assisted prediction tool—Source—to be used during consultations by using an iterative, user-centered approach. The accompanying communication skills training was developed based on specific learning objectives, literature, and expert opinions. The Source tool was tested in several rounds—a face-to-face focus group with 6 patients and survivors, semistructured interviews with 5 patients, think-aloud sessions with 3 medical oncologists, and interviews with 6 field experts. In a final pilot study, the Source tool and training were tested as a combined intervention by 5 medical oncology fellows and 3 esophagogastric outpatients.

Results

The Source tool contains personalized prediction models and data from meta-analyses regarding survival, treatment side effects and complications, and health-related quality of life. The treatment outcomes were visualized in a patient-friendly manner by using pictographs and bar and line graphs. The communication skills training consisted of blended learning for clinicians comprising e-learning and 2 face-to-face sessions. Adjustments to improve both training and the Source tool were made according to feedback from all testing rounds.

Conclusions

The Source tool and training could play an important role in informing patients with esophagogastric cancer about treatment outcomes in an evidence-based, precise, personalized, and tailored manner. The preliminary evaluation results are promising and provide valuable input for the further development and testing of both elements. However, the remaining uncertainty about treatment outcomes in patients and established habits in doctors, in addition to the varying trust in the prediction models, might influence the effectiveness of the tool and training in daily practice. We are currently conducting a multicenter clinical trial to investigate the impact that the combined tool and training have on the provision of information in the context of treatment decision-making.

The experiences of health professionals, patients, and families with truth disclosure when breaking bad news in palliative care: A qualitative meta-synthesis

Objective

Disclosing the truth when breaking bad news continues to be difficult for health professionals, yet it is essential for patients when making informed decisions about their treatment and end-of-life care. This literature review aimed to explore and examine how health professionals, patients, and families experience truth disclosure during the delivery of bad news in the inpatient/outpatient palliative care setting.

Methods

A systemized search for peer-reviewed, published papers between 2013 and 2020 was undertaken in September 2020 using the CINAHL, Medline, and PsycInfo databases. The keywords and MeSH terms (“truth disclosure”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) were used. The search was repeated using (“bad news”) AND (“palliative care or end-of-life care or terminal care or dying”) terms. A meta-synthesis was undertaken to synthesize the findings from the eight papers.

Results

Eight papers were included in the meta-synthesis and were represented by five Western countries. Following the synthesis process, two concepts were identified: “Enablers in breaking bad news” and “Truth avoidance/disclosure.” Several elements formed the concept of Enablers for breaking bad news, such as the therapeutic relationship, reading cues, acknowledgment, language/delivery, time/place, and qualities. A conceptual model was developed to illustrate the findings of the synthesis.

Significance of results

The conceptual model demonstrates a unique way to look at communication dynamics around truth disclosure and avoidance when breaking bad news. Informed decision-making requires an understanding of the whole truth, and therefore truth disclosure is an essential part of breaking bad news.

Communication about Prognosis during Patient-Initiated Second Opinion Consultations in Advanced Cancer Care: An Observational Qualitative Analysis

Prognostic communication is essential for patients with advanced cancer to enable informed medical decision-making and end-of-life planning. Discussing prognosis is challenging, and might be especially complex for oncologists conducting a second opinion (SO). Survival data are often lacking, and consulting oncologists need to consider previously conveyed information and patients’ relationship with the referring oncologist. We qualitatively investigated how advanced cancer patients and consulting oncologists discuss prognosis during audio-recorded SO consultations (N = 60), including prognostic information received from the referring oncologist. Our results show that patients regularly expressed implicit cues to discuss prognosis or posed explicit questions tentatively. Consulting oncologists were mostly unresponsive to patients’ cues and cautious to prognosticate. They also seemed cautious when patients brought up the referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists checked which prognostic information patients had received from the referring oncologist, before estimating prognosis. They agreed with the first opinion or rectified discrepancies carefully. Altogether, this study exposes missed opportunities for open prognostic discussions in SOs. Consulting oncologists could explicitly explore patients’ information preferences and perceptions of prognosis. If desired, they can provide tailored, independent information to optimise patients’ prognostic awareness and informed medical decision-making. They may additionally support patients in dealing with prognosis and the uncertainties associated with it.

Communicating prognostic information and hope to families of dying patients in intensive care units: A descriptive qualitative study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To understand how prognostic information is communicated by Jordanian doctors and nurses to the families of dying patients in intensive care units, with an emphasis on exploring how hope and truth telling about patients' poor prognosis are managed.

BACKGROUND

Improving end-of-life care requires a focus on adequate family-professionals prognostic communication, while maintaining a realistic level of hope and family support.

DESIGN

A descriptive qualitative approach was applied.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 nurses and 15 resident doctors caring for dying patients. Bardin's procedure of categorical content analysis was applied. The COREQ checklist for reporting qualitative studies was followed.

RESULTS

Two main categories emerged from the data of this study: 'perspectives on optimistic hope' and 'approaches to prognostic communication'. Health professionals experience extreme difficulty, and therefore, frequently avoid openly disclosing information about patients' poor prognosis to the families. Consequently, the health professionals adopted various methods to balance truth telling against sustaining hope among the patients' families. Providing false assurance was perceived as permissible and understandable, in order to nurture the families' hope.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving end-of-life care in intensive care units in Jordan requires a focus on family-professional communication. Jordanian intensive care doctors and nurses perceived honest family-professional communication regarding dying patients to be extremely challenging. Healthcare professionals should develop their competency of meeting the informational and emotional needs of patients in ICUs and their families, while also honouring their cultural values, during prognostic communication.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Effective training of healthcare professionals is vital on ways to enhance communication of prognostic information and to foster realistic hope among families of dying patients in intensive care units. There is a need to also explore the families' perspectives on prognostic communication in order to understand the similarities and differences between the professionals' and families' perspectives.

Chemotherapy in the Last 30 Days and 14 Days of Life in African Americans With Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

African Americans with lung cancer are diagnosed at later stages and have high mortality rates. Chemotherapy is considered aggressive treatment near the end of life and prevents enrollment in hospice.

OBJECTIVES

This study explored chemotherapy in the last 30 and 14 days of life among African Americans with lung cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was used to gather sociodemographic and treatment data on persons newly diagnosed with lung cancer between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. African Americans with a documented date of death were included.

RESULTS

The mean age (N=74) was 64.0 years, 58.1% were rural dwellers, and 59.5% had Medicare. Most had advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (Stage IIIB, 18.8%; Stage IV, 46.4%). In this study, 17.6% received chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life and 27.0% received chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life. No significant associations between age, sex, residence (rural vs urban) and receipt of chemotherapy in the last 14 or 30 days of life were found. A significant association was found between type of insurance and chemotherapy in the last 14 or 30 days of life: Medicare was associated with chemotherapy in both last 14 days of life χ²(1) = 4.448, p = .035 and last 30 days of life χ2(1) = 4.773, p = .029. A binomial logistic regression using demographic factors, including insurance, was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate a need for improvement in the number of individuals who receive chemotherapy in the final month of life.

Understanding Hospice Patients' Beliefs About Their Life Expectancy: A Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced disease often overestimate their life expectancy, which potentially impacts decision making.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the nature and source of hospice patients' life expectancy estimates, about which little is known.

DESIGN

Using semi-structured interviews, patients were asked to estimate their life expectancy and elaborate on their response.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Participants were hospice patients (n = 20, 55% male; 60% cancer).

MEASUREMENT

We conducted thematic analysis using open and focused coding.

RESULTS

Many participants had difficulty answering the life expectancy question and expressed uncertainty about when they would die. One-third overestimated their length of life relative to actual survival. The most common source of patients' prognostic beliefs was knowledge about their body, including physical symptoms and change over time. Half of patients reported that a provider had given them a prognostic estimate, and one-third agreed with, or gave estimates consistent with, the provider's estimate. Some patients said providers do not know prognosis or that time of death was unknowable.

CONCLUSIONS

Key findings were that 1) many hospice patients had difficulty estimating life expectancy, and 2) hospice patients' life expectancy estimates were frequently based on their body and not on information from medical providers. These findings have implications for measuring prognostic awareness, as valid assessment is a necessary component of determining whether prognostic awareness is beneficial for patients. Future research should examine how life expectancy estimates are associated with well-being and whether results extend to larger samples of patients with advanced disease not in hospice.

Informing metastatic colorectal cancer patients by quantifying multiple scenarios for survival time based on real-life data

Reported median overall survival (mOS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients participating in systemic therapy trials has increased to over 30 months. It is uncertain whether trial results translate to real-life populations. Moreover, patients prefer presentation of multiple survival scenarios. Population-based data of all stage IV CRC patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2016 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, which has a case ascertainment completeness surpassing 95%. We calculated the following percentiles (scenarios) of OS per year of diagnosis for the total population, and for treatment subgroups: 10th (best-case), 25th (upper-typical), 50th (median), 75th (lower-typical) and 90th (worst-case). Twenty-five percent of patients did not receive any antitumor treatment. From 2008 to 2016, mOS of the total population (n = 27275) remained unchanged at approximately 12 months. OS improved only for the upper-typical and best-case patients; by 4.2 to 29.1 months (P < .001), and by 6 to 62 months (P < .001), respectively. No clinically relevant change was observed among patients who received systemic therapy, with mOS close to 15 months and best-case scenario approximately 40 months. A clinically relevant improvement in survival over time was observed in patients who initially received metastasectomy and/or HIPEC only. In contrast to the wide belief based on trial data that mOS of mCRC patients receiving systemic therapy has improved substantially, improvement could not be demonstrated in our real-life population. Clinicians should consider quoting multiple survival scenarios based on real-life data instead of point estimates from clinical trials, when informing patients about their life expectancy.

Preferences for life expectancy discussions following diagnosis with a life-threatening illness: a discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

To explore in a sample of adult cancer patients: (1) the relative influence of initiation source, information format and consultation format on preferred approach to life expectancy disclosure using a discrete choice experiment (DCE); and (2) whether patient age, cancer type and perceived prognosis were associated with preferences within the three attributes.

METHODS

A DCE survey of adult solid tumour and haematological cancer patients. Participants chose between three hypothetical scenarios about life expectancy disclosure consisting of three attributes: initiation source (i.e. doctor versus patient-initiated discussion), information content (i.e. estimate presented as best-worst-typical length of life case scenario versus median survival time) and consultation format (i.e. two 20-min versus one 40-min consultation). Respondents selected their most preferred scenario within each question.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two patients completed the DCE (78% consent rate). Initiation source was the most influential predictor of patient choice. More preferred a doctor deliver life expectancy information as soon as it is available rather than waiting for the patient to ask (59% vs 41% z = - 7.396, p < 0.01). More patients preferred the two 20-min rather than the one 40-min consultation format (55% vs 45%, z = 4.284, p < 0.01). Information content did not influence choice. Age, cancer type, and patient-perceived prognosis were not associated with preferences.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals should assess cancer patients' preferences for engaging in life expectancy discussions as soon as they have this information, and ensure patients have adequate time to consider the information they receive, seek additional information and involve others if they wish.

Teamwork in prognostic communication: Addressing bottlenecks and barriers

Prognostic communication is essential to family-centered care in pediatric oncology. Yet, prognostic communication from the medical team to the family is often absent or incomplete. In our experience, many clinical groups view prognostic disclosure as the responsibility of the patient's primary oncologist, and nurses are often excluded from these conversations. This current individual-based model of prognostic disclosure lacks redundancy and creates a communication bottleneck. We propose that clinical groups should address prognostic communication with a multidisciplinary team-based approach that incorporates three critical components: shared team mental models, distribution and redundancy in role assignment, and high fidelity monitoring of communication milestones.

The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

While prognostic information is considered important for treatment decision-making, physicians struggle to communicate prognosis to advanced cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to offer up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on prognostic communication in palliative oncology.

METHODS

PubMed and PsycInfo were searched until September 2019 for literature on the association between prognostic disclosure (strategies) and patient outcomes in palliative cancer care, and its moderators. Methodological quality was reported.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included. Concerning prognostic disclosure, results revealed a positive association with patients' prognostic awareness. Findings showed no or positive associations between prognostic disclosure and the physician-patient relationship or the discussion of care preferences. Evidence for an association with the documentation of care preferences or physical outcomes was lacking. Findings on the emotional consequences of prognostic disclosure were multifaceted. Concerning disclosure strategies, affective communication seemingly reduced patients' physiological arousal and improved perceived physician's support. Affective and explicit communication showed no or beneficial effects on patients' psychological well-being and satisfaction. Communicating multiple survival scenarios improved prognostic understanding. Physicians displaying expertise, positivity and collaboration fostered hope. Evidence on demographic, clinical and personality factors moderating the effect of prognostic communication was weak.

CONCLUSION

If preferred by patients, physicians could disclose prognosis using sensible strategies. The combination of explicit and affective communication, multiple survival scenarios and expert, positive, collaborative behaviour likely benefits most patients. Still, more evidence is needed, and tailoring communication to individual patients is warranted.

IMPLICATIONS

Future research should examine the effect of prognostic communication on psychological well-being over time and treatment decision-making, and focus on individualising care.

Prognostic Awareness in Adult Oncology and Palliative Care

Communicating prognosis clearly and empathically can foster accurate prognostic awareness in patients with advanced cancer and their family members. Whereas patients and doctors desire clear prognostic communication, it presents many challenges in oncologic and palliative care settings. Patients with advanced cancer often have poor prognostic awareness as a result of deficiencies in doctor communication and understandable-and potentially adaptive-attempts by patients and families to reduce the threat of death and maintain hope. Interventions to promote prognostic discussion have largely succeeded in increasing the frequency, but not necessarily the quality, of such discussions, yet have failed to improve prognostic awareness. Because clear communication of prognosis is an ethical mandate, more research is needed to provide an evidence base for teaching and practice in this area.

Prognosticating for Adult Patients With Advanced Incurable Cancer: a Needed Oncologist Skill

Patients with advanced cancer and their families commonly seek information about prognosis to aid decision-making in medical (e.g. surrounding treatment), psychological (e.g. saying goodbye), and social (e.g. getting affairs in order) domains. Oncologists therefore have a responsibility to identify and address these requests by formulating and sensitively communicating information about prognosis. Current evidence suggests that clinician predictions are correlated with actual survival but tend to be overestimations. In an attempt to cultivate prognostic skills, it is recommended that clinicians practice formulating and recording subjective estimates of prognosis in advanced cancer patient’s medical notes. When possible, a multi-professional prognostic estimate should be sought as these may be more accurate than individual predictions alone. Clinicians may consider auditing the accuracy of their predictions periodically and using feedback from this process to improve their prognostic skills.

Clinicians may also consider using validated prognostic tools to complement their clinical judgements. However, there is currently only limited evidence about the comparative accuracy of different prognostic tools or the extent to which these measures are superior to clinical judgement. Oncologists and palliative care physicians should ensure that they receive adequate training in advanced communication skills, which builds upon their pre-existing skills, to sensitively deliver information on prognosis. In particular, clinicians should acknowledge their own prognostic uncertainty and should emphasise the supportive care that can continue to be provided after stopping cancer-directed therapies.

Patient-hematologist discordance in perceived chance of cure in hematologic malignancies: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Ensuring that patients with hematologic malignancies have an accurate understanding of their likelihood of cure is important for informed decision making. In a multicenter, longitudinal study, the authors examined discordance in patients' perception of their chance of cure versus that of their hematologists, whether patient-hematologist discordance changed after a consultation with a hematologist, and factors associated with persistent discordance.

METHODS

Before and after consultation with a hematologist, patients were asked about their perceived chance of cure (options were <10%, 10%-19%, and up to 90%-100% in 10% increments, and "do not wish to answer"). Hematologists were asked the same question after consultation. Discordance was defined as a difference in response by 2 levels. The McNemar test was used to compare changes in patient-hematologist prognostic discordance from before to after consultation. A generalized linear mixed model was used to examine associations between factors and postconsultation discordance, adjusting for clustering at the hematologist level.

RESULTS

A total of 209 patients and 46 hematologists from 4 sites were included in the current study. Before consultation, approximately 61% of dyads were discordant, which improved to 50% after consultation (P < .01). On multivariate analysis, lower educational level (<college vs postgraduate: odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% CI, 1.02-4.92), higher social support-affection subscale score (1-unit change in score: OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32), and discordance before consultation (OR, 6.17; 95% CI, 2.99-12.72) were found to be significantly associated with discordance after consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-hematologist concordance in prognostic understanding appears to improve after a hematology consultation, but approximately one-half of patients' views of their prognoses were found to remain discordant with those of their hematologists. Interventions are needed to improve prognostic understanding among patients with hematologic malignancies.

Uncertainty in health care: Towards a more systematic program of research

OBJECTIVE

To promote a more systematic approach to research on uncertainty in health care, and to explore promising starting points and future directions for this research.

METHODS

We examine three fundamental aspects of medical uncertainty that a systematic research program should ideally address: its nature, effects, and communication. We summarize key insights from past empirical research and explore existing conceptual models that can help guide future research.

RESULTS

A diverse body of past research on medical uncertainty has produced valuable empirical insights and conceptual models that provide useful starting points for future empirical and theoretical work. However, these insights need to be more fully developed and integrated to answer remaining questions about what uncertainty is, how it affects people, and how and why it should be communicated.

CONCLUSION

Uncertainty in health care is an extremely important but incompletely understood phenomenon. Improving our understanding of the many important aspects of uncertainty in health care will require a more systematic program of research based upon shared, integrative conceptual models and active, collaborative engagement of the broader research community.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A more systematic approach to investigating uncertainty in health care can help elucidate how the clinical communication of uncertainty might be improved.

Moving toward the next generation of communication training in oncology: The relevance of findings from qualitative research

OBJECTIVE

The critics and recommendations for communication training in oncology call for new ideas, which may contribute to designing the next generation of training. The aim of this work was to search the literature on communication in oncology for empirically grounded observations that might be useful for the development of training approaches.

METHODS

The approach consists of identifying findings that might serve as cues for the design of the next generation of training. The literature search strategy allowed the inclusion of 68 articles.

RESULTS

Findings of the articles showed that multiple factors shape clinical communication: the functions and effects of information provision, the relational and interactional aspects of communication, its patient- and context-related dimensions, and the intrapsychic and context-related barriers hampering the patient encounter that clinicians are facing.

CONCLUSION

A way to reach all oncologists and to provide training centred on the singular needs of participants is a shift in the focus of training from communication tasks or communication-related situations to the clinician.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Training should focus on the competencies and qualities to be developed by clinicians, such as being flexible, able to adapt to the singular patient, sensitive to interactional aspects of communication, which influence the clinical encounter.

Beliefs About Advanced Cancer Curability in Older Patients, Their Caregivers, and Oncologists

BACKGROUND

Ensuring older patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists have similar beliefs about curability is important. We investigated discordance in beliefs about curability in patient-oncologist and caregiver-oncologist dyads.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used baseline data from a cluster randomized trial assessing whether geriatric assessment improves communication and quality of life in older patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients were aged ≥70 years with incurable cancer from community oncology practices. Patients, caregivers, and oncologists were asked: "What do you believe are the chances the cancer will go away and never come back with treatment?" Options were 100%, >50%, 50/50, <50%, and 0% (5-point scale). Discordance in beliefs about curability was defined as any difference in scale scores (≥3 points were severe). We used multivariate logistic regressions to describe correlates of discordance.

RESULTS

Discordance was present in 60% (15% severe) of the 336 patient-oncologist dyads and 52% (16% severe) of the 245 caregiver-oncologist dyads. Discordance was less common in patient-oncologist dyads when oncologists practiced longer (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.97) and more common in non-Hispanic white patients (AOR 5.77, CI 1.90-17.50) and when patients had lung (AOR 1.95, CI 1.29-2.94) or gastrointestinal (AOR 1.55, CI 1.09-2.21) compared with breast cancer. Severe discordance was more common when patients were non-Hispanic white, had lower income, and had impaired social support. Caregiver-oncologist discordance was more common when caregivers were non-Hispanic white (AOR 3.32, CI 1.01-10.94) and reported lower physical health (AOR 0.88, CI 0.78-1.00). Severe discordance was more common when caregivers had lower income and lower anxiety level.

CONCLUSION

Discordance in beliefs about curability is common, occasionally severe, and correlated with patient, caregiver, and oncologist characteristics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Ensuring older patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have similar beliefs about curability as the oncologist is important. This study investigated discordance in beliefs about curability in patient-oncologist (PO) and caregiver-oncologist (CO) dyads. It found that discordance was present in 60% (15% severe) of PO dyads and 52% (16% severe) of CO dyads, raising serious questions about the process by which patients consent to treatment. This study supports the need for interventions targeted at the oncologist, patient, caregiver, and societal levels to improve the delivery of prognostic information and patients'/caregivers' understanding and acceptance of prognosis.

Ethical issues in the care of adolescent and young adult oncology patients

The diagnosis and treatment of cancer leads to short-term and long-term challenges for every patient. This is especially true for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer who strive to gain independence, autonomy, confidence, and social status while developing into adulthood. In this article, we review prominent ethical issues in AYA oncology that are related to autonomy, shared decision-making, care refusal or abandonment, end-of-life care, truth telling, and fertility preservation. Clinicians should recognize that AYA patients develop at their own pace; the onus lies with clinicians to determine the patient's interests, values, maturity, and desire to participate in decision-making.

The distress thermometer as a prognostic tool for one-year survival among patients with lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The use of patient-reported outcome measures is increasingly advocated to support high-quality cancer care. We therefore investigated the added value of the Distress Thermometer (DT) when combined with known predictors to assess one-year survival in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

All patients had newly diagnosed or recurrent lung cancer, started systemic treatment, and participated in the intervention arm of a previously published randomised controlled trial. A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted based on five selected known predictors for survival. The DT-score was added to this model and contrasted to models including the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global QoL score (quality of life) or the HADS total score (symptoms of anxiety and depression). Model performance was evaluated through improvement in the -2 log likelihood, Harrell's C-statistic, and a risk classification.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients were included in the analysis of whom 97 patients accurately completed the DT. Patients with a DT score ≥5 (N = 51) had a lower QoL, more symptoms of anxiety and depression, and a shorter median survival time (7.6 months vs 10.0 months; P = 0.02) than patients with a DT score <5 (N = 46). Addition of the DT resulted in a significant improvement in the accuracy of the model to predict one-year survival (P < 0.001) and the discriminatory value (C-statistic) marginally improved from 0.69 to 0.71. The proportion of patients correctly classified as high risk (≥85% risk of dying within one year) increased from 8% to 28%. Similar model performance was observed when combining the selected predictors with QoL and symptoms of anxiety or depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the DT allows clinicians to better identify patients with lung cancer at risk for poor outcomes, to further explore sources of distress, and subsequently personalize care accordingly.

Relationship between physicians' death anxiety and medical communication and decision-making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between physicians' death anxiety and medical communication and decision-making. It was hypothesized that physicians' death anxiety may lead to the avoidance of end-of-life conversations and a preference for life-prolonging treatments.

METHODS

PubMed and PsycInfo were systematically searched for empirical studies on the relation between physicians' death anxiety and medical communication and decision-making.

RESULTS

This review included five quantitative and two qualitative studies (N = 7). Over 38 relations between death anxiety and communication were investigated, five were in line with and one contradicted our hypothesis. Physicians' death anxiety seemes to make end-of-life communication more difficult. Over 40 relations between death anxiety and decision-making were investigated, three were in line with and two contradicted the hypothesis. Death anxiety seemes related to physicians' guilt or doubt after a patient's death.

CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to confirm that death anxiety is related to more avoidant communication or decision-making. However, death anxiety does seem to make end-of-life communication and decision-making more difficult for physicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Education focused on death and dying and physicians' emotions in medical practice may improve the perceived ease with which physicians care for patients at the end of life.

Examining the transitions between living and dying roles at end-of-life

Improvements in the diagnosis and disclosure of dying mean that nowadays dying people typically live with an awareness of their status for longer than they have previously. However, little is known regarding how transitions between living and dying roles occur during this time. In this grounded theory study, we investigated role transitions at end-of-life. We found that dying people periodically foreground and background living and dying selfhoods, focus on living day-by-day and goal-by-goal and reframe dying roles with an orientation to living. We argue that with better understanding of role transitions at end-of-life more compassionate and responsive care becomes possible.

Impact of Prognostic Discussions on the Patient-Physician Relationship: Prospective Cohort Study

Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.