Prognostic disclosure in oncology - current communication models: a scoping review

Tips from clinicians about if, when, and how to discuss life expectancy with older adults

OBJECTIVES

Estimates of life expectancy can inform clinical recommendations and decisions for older adults, but many clinicians find it difficult to discuss. We interviewed primary care clinicians to identify best practices for discussing life expectancy with older adults.

METHODS

Twenty-one primary care clinicians (Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Geriatrics) completed in-depth interviews on Zoom or by telephone. Topics included estimation and discussion of life expectancy with older patients to guide cancer screening and preventive care decisions. We transcribed, coded, and inductively analyzed interviews using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Most clinicians recommended individualizing communication about life expectancy versus a standardized approach. Although many clinicians worry that conversations about life expectancy won't go well, successful conversations are possible when clinicians bring humility, care, and attention to these interactions. Clinicians identified seven steps that they find effective for deciding if, when, and how to discuss life expectancy with older patients and detailed tips for using these steps in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians can take multiple steps to optimize conversations about life expectancy to personalize medical decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The tips and language presented provide a helpful starting point for clinicians to have conversations about life expectancy and appropriate care with older adults.

An international field study for the reliability and validity of the EORTC communication questionnaire EORTC QLQ-COMU26

BACKGROUND

The EORTC Quality of Life Group has developed a questionnaire to evaluate cancer patients' perception of their communication with healthcare professionals (HCPs): the EORTC QLQ-COMU26. In this study we test the validity and reliability of this novel measure in an international and culturally diverse sample of cancer patients.

METHODS

Cancer patients completed the following EORTC questionnaires at two time points (before and during treatment): the QLQ-COMU26 (including a debriefing questionnaire), the QLQ-C30, and specific IN-PATSAT32 scales. These data were used to assess: the cross-cultural applicability, acceptability, scale structure, reliability, convergent/divergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change of the QLQ-COMU26.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 498 patients with various cancer diagnoses in 10 European countries, Japan, Jordan and India (overall 5 cultural regions). At most, only 3% of patients identified an item as confusing and 0.6% as upsetting, which indicates that the questionnaire was clear and did not trigger negative emotional responses. Confirmatory factor analysis and multi-trait scaling confirmed the hypothesised QLQ-COMU26 scale structure comprising six multi-item scales and four single items (RMSEA = 0.025). Reliability was good for all scales (internal consistency > 0.70; test-retest reliability > 0.85). Convergent validity was supported by correlations of ≥ 0.50 with related scales of the IN-PATSAT32 and correlations < 0.30 with unrelated QLQ-C30 scales. Known-groups validity was shown according to sex, education, levels of anxiety and depression, satisfaction with communication, disease stage and treatment intention, professional evaluated, and having a companion during the visit. The QLQ-COMU26 captured changes over time in groups that were defined based on changes in the item of satisfaction with communication.

CONCLUSION

The EORTC QLQ-COMU26 is a reliable and valid measure of patients' perceptions of their communication with HCPs. The EORTC QLQ-COMU26 can be used in daily clinical practice and research and in various cancer patient groups from different cultures. This questionnaire can help to improve communication between patients and healthcare professionals.

Enhancing Oncologists' Comfort with Serious Illness Conversations: The Impact of Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) Training

Providers oftentimes need to have difficult conversations with patients facing a poor prognosis. Research indicates that providers generally feel ill prepared for these conversations and that bad conversations may lead to more anxiety for patients. Communication skills development training programs have shown improvement in providers' skills. Our cancer center embarked on skills development training to help providers improve their skills and comfort in having serious illness conversations. During our phased approach, about 500 physicians and advanced practice providers in the Division of Oncology were trained for over a year. Their level of comfort with serious illness conversations was measured before and after the training by using both quantitative and qualitative methods. We found that mean and median comfort scores increased from pre-training to post-training. The findings suggest that the improved comfort and confidence observed among providers who undergo communications skills training can lead to better provider-patient communication, more patient-centered care, and improved patient satisfaction.

Core Competencies for Serious Illness Conversations: An Integrative Systematic Review

Objective: The Serious Illness Care Program was developed to support goals and values discussions between seriously ill patients and their clinicians. The core competencies, that is, the essential clinical conversation skills that are described as requisite for effective serious illness conversations (SICs) in practice, have not yet been explicated. This integrative systematic review aimed to identify core competencies for SICs in the context of the Serious Illness Care Program. Methods: Articles published between January 2014 and March 2023 were identified in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed databases. In total, 313 records underwent title and abstract screening, and 96 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The articles were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Guidelines, and data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results: In total, 53 articles were included. Clinicians' core competencies for SICs were described in 3 themes: conversation resources, intrapersonal capabilities, and interpersonal capabilities. Conversation resources included using the conversation guide as a tool, together with applying appropriate communication skills to support better communication. Intrapersonal capabilities included calibrating one's own attitudes and mindset as well as confidence and self-assurance to engage in SICs. Interpersonal capabilities focused on the clinician's ability to interact with patients and family members to foster a mutually trusting relationship, including empathetic communication with attention and adherence to patient and family members views, goals, needs, and preferences. Conclusions: Clinicians need to efficiently combine conversation resources with intrapersonal and interpersonal skills to successfully conduct and interact in SICs.

Conspiracy of Silence in Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis: A Scoping Review

Cancer disclosure represents a complex healthcare dynamic. Physicians or caregivers may be prompted to withhold diagnosis information from patients. This study aims to comprehensively map and synthesize available evidence about diagnosis nondisclosure regarding head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, a scoping review was conducted across major databases without period restriction, yielding 9238 publications. After screening and selection, a descriptive synthesis was conducted. Sixteen studies were included, primarily conducted in academic settings (75%) from Europe and Asia, with a total population of 662 patients predominantly diagnosed with brain, oral, pharyngeal, or laryngeal tumors. Remarkably, 22.51% of patients were unaware of their diagnosis. Although physicians were the main source of diagnostic information (35%), they reported to often use vague terms to convey malignancy. Additionally, 13.29% of patients were aware of their diagnosis from sources other than doctors or caregivers. Caregivers (55%) supported diagnosis concealment, and physicians tended to respect family wishes. A high diagnosis-to-death interval, education, and age significantly influenced diagnosis disclosure. HNC patients expressed a desire for personalized open communication. Multiple factors influenced the decision on diagnosis disclosure. Current evidence on this topic varies significantly, and there is limited research on the consequences of nondisclosure. These findings reflect the underestimation of the patients' outlook in the diagnosis process and highlight the need for further research, aiming to establish open communication and patient autonomy during the oncological journey.

Parents' preferences for receiving and discussing prognostic genetic information regarding their children's neurodevelopmental condition: A qualitative study

AIM

To investigate parents' preferences and motivations for receiving and discussing prognostic genetic test results.

METHOD

We used a cross-sectional, interpretive description qualitative study design. We collected data through semi-structured interviews with Australian parents, which we analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Parents (n = 32) had a child or children with a genetic neurodevelopmental condition, such as fragile X syndrome, DiGeorge (22q11.2 deletion) syndrome, or Angelman syndrome. Parents of mildly impacted or older children were tolerant to prognostic uncertainty. Parents found conversations about their child's prognosis emotional and preferred to discuss their child's potential strengths and challenges. While most were enthusiastic about prognostic tests and described many motivations for testing, the potential for prognostic information to contribute to a loss of hope and stigmatizing societal views were also discussed.

INTERPRETATION

Parents had mixed preferences and motivations for acquiring prognostic genetic information about their child, contrasting evidence in other contexts such as cancer where parents typically have minimal tolerance of uncertainty. Health professionals should consider strength-based framing of prognostic information gained from current and emerging technologies when returning results to families.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

Parents had varied views about receiving prognostic information on their children's neurodevelopmental condition. Some parents preferred prognostic uncertainty about their children's genetic neurodevelopmental condition.

A qualitative evaluation of factors influencing Tumor Treating fields (TTFields) therapy decision making among brain tumor patients and physicians

BACKGROUND

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Therapy is an FDA-approved therapy in the first line and recurrent setting for glioblastoma. Despite Phase 3 evidence showing improved survival with TTFields, it is not uniformly utilized. We aimed to examine patient and clinician views of TTFields and factors shaping utilization of TTFields through a unique research partnership with medical neuro oncology and medical social sciences.

METHODS

Adult glioblastoma patients who were offered TTFields at a tertiary care academic hospital were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their decision to use or not use TTFields. Clinicians who prescribe TTFields were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about TTFields.

RESULTS

Interviews were completed with 40 patients with a mean age of 53 years; 92.5% were white and 60% were male. Participants who decided against TTFields stated that head shaving, appearing sick, and inconvenience of wearing/carrying the device most influenced their decision. The most influential factors for use of TTFields were the efficacy of the device and their clinician's opinion. Clinicians (N = 9) stated that TTFields was a good option for glioblastoma patients, but some noted that their patients should consider the burdens and benefits of TTFields as it may not be the desired choice for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to examine patient decision making for TTFields. Findings suggest that clinician support and efficacy data are among the key decision-making factors. Properly understanding the path to patients' decision making is crucial in optimizing the use of TTFields and other therapeutic decisions for glioblastoma patients.

Serious Illness Communication in Cirrhosis Care: Tools to Improve Illness Understanding, Prognostic Understanding, and Care Planning

Patients with cirrhosis frequently experience an unpredictable illness trajectory, with frequent hospitalizations and complications. Along with the uncertain nature of the disease, the possibility of a lifesaving and curative transplant often makes prognostic discussions and future care decisions challenging. Serious illness communication (SIC) refers to supportive communication whereby clinicians assess patients' illness understanding, share prognostic information according to patients' preferences, explore patients' goals, and make recommendations for care that align with these goals. SIC includes 3 key components: (1) illness understanding; (2) prognostic understanding; and (3) care planning. In this piece, we explore current barriers to early implementation of SIC in cirrhosis care and share possible solutions, including adopting a multidisciplinary approach, delivering culturally competent care, and training clinicians in SIC core skills. By use of a case example, we aim to demonstrate SIC in action and to provide clinicians with tools and skills that can be used in practice.

Guidelines for goals of care discussions in patients with gynecologic cancer

This article represents a distillation of literature to provide guidance for goals of care discussions with patients who have gynecologic malignancies. As clinicians who provide surgical care, chemotherapy, and targeted therapeutics, gynecologic oncology clinicians are uniquely positioned to form longitudinal relationships with patients that can enable patient-centered decision making. In this review, we describe optimal timing, components, and best practices for goals of care discussions in gynecologic oncology.

The ALIGN Framework: A Parent-Informed Approach to Prognostic Communication for Infants With Neurologic Conditions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Clinicians often communicate complex, uncertain, and distressing information about neurologic prognosis to parents of critically ill infants. Although communication tools have been developed in other disciplines and settings, none address the unique needs of the neonatal and pediatric neurology context. We aimed to develop a parent-informed framework to guide clinicians in communicating information about neurologic prognosis.

METHODS

Parents of infants with neurologic conditions in the intensive care unit were enrolled in a longitudinal study of shared decision-making from 2018 to 2020. Parents completed semistructured interviews following recorded family meetings with the health care team, at hospital discharge, and 6 months after discharge. All interviews targeted information about parent preferences for prognostic disclosure. We analyzed the data using a conventional content analysis approach. Two study team members independently coded all interview transcripts, and discrepancies were resolved in consensus. We used NVIVO 12 qualitative software to index and organize codes.

RESULTS

Fifty-two parents of 37 infants completed 123 interviews. Parents were predominantly mothers (n = 37/52, 71%) with a median age of 31 (range 19-46) years. Half were Black (n = 26/52, 50%), and a minority reported Hispanic ethnicity (n = 2/52, 4%). Inductive analysis resulted in the emergence of 5 phases of prognostic communication (Approach, Learn, Inform, Give support, and Next steps: ALIGN): (1) Approach: parents appreciated receiving consistent information about their child's neurologic outcome from clinicians who knew their child well. (2) Learn: parents valued when clinicians asked them how they preferred receiving information and what they already knew about their child's outcome prior to information delivery. (3) Inform: parents valued honest, thorough, and balanced information that disclosed prognostic uncertainty and acknowledged room for hope. (4) Give support: parents valued empathic communication and appreciated clinicians who offered real-time emotional support. (5) Next steps: parents appreciated clinicians who connected them to resources, including peer support.

DISCUSSION

The ALIGN framework offers a novel, parent-informed strategy to effectively communicate neurologic prognosis. Although ALIGN represents key elements of a conversation about prognosis, each clinician can adapt this framework to their own approach. Future work will assess the effectiveness of this framework on communication quality and prognostic understanding.

"If I Become a Vegetable, Then no": A Thematic Analysis of How Patients and Physicians Refer to Prognosis When Discussing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Background: Documenting decisions about the relevance cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a standard practice at hospital admission yet a complex task. Objective: Our aim was to explore how physicians approach and discuss CPR prognosis with older patients recently admitted to a post-acute care unit. Method: We recorded 43 conversations between physicians and patients about the relevancy of CPR that took place at admission at the geriatric rehabilitation service of a Swiss university hospital. Thematic analysis determined (i) who initiated the talk about CPR prognosis, (ii) at what point in the conversation, and (iii) how prognosis was referred to. Results: Prognosis was mentioned in 65% of the conversations. We categorized the content of references to CPR prognosis in five themes: factors determining the prognosis (general health, age, duration of maneuvers); life (association of CPR with life, survival); proximal adverse outcomes (broken ribs, intensive care); long-term adverse outcomes (loss of autonomy, suffering a stroke, pain, generic, uncertainty); and being a burden. Discussion and conclusion: Discussing CPR is important to all patients, including those for whom it is not recommended. Information about CPR prognosis is essential to empower and support patients in expressing their expectations from life-prolonging interventions and attain shared decision-making.

To Treat or Not to Treat? Dilemmas when Deciding on Antineoplastic Treatment in Patients With Far Advanced Cancers

Patients with advanced cancers and their oncologists are often faced with difficult treatment decisions, especially when there are borderline situations of expected benefit or increased risk of complications. In this narrative review, we will explore the decision-making process for patients with advanced cancers and provide insights on how to approach this complex task, while didactically dividing the oncologist's assessments according to a mnemonic rule of the ABCDE of therapeutic decision-making. Part A (advanced cancer) recalls that the rule is to be used specifically for advanced cancers. Parts B (potential benefits) and C (clinical conditions and risks) represents the traditional risk vs benefit scale. In Part D, we discuss ways to identify and understand patients' desires, values, preferences, and beliefs. The prognostic estimation, from Part E, may function as an "adjust" for the antineoplastic treatment decision-making. Treatment decisions need to be conducted by skilled oncologists, in a patient-centered care, aiming to promote valuable oncology with lower rates of aggressive care.

Prognostic Understanding and Goals of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study

CONTEXT

There is a paucity of data describing patients' expectations of goals of palliative radiotherapy (RT) and overall prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

To explore patients' perceptions of and preferences for communication surrounding goals of palliative RT and cancer prognosis.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews with seventeen patients with either bone or lung metastases receiving their first course of palliative RT at a comprehensive cancer center. All patient interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Themes of goals of palliative RT centered on either restoration, such as through improving quality of life or minimizing pain, or on a desire to combat cancer by eliminating tumor. While most patients perceived that palliative RT would palliate symptoms but not cure their cancer, some patients believed that the goal of palliative RT was to cure. Themes that emerged surrounding patients' understanding of prognosis and what lies ahead included uncertainty and apprehension about the future, a focus on additional treatment, and confronting mortality. Most patients preferred to receive information about goals of treatment and prognosis from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, rather than other members of the medical team. Patients also expressed a desire for written patient education materials on palliative RT.

CONCLUSION

Unclear perceptions of goals of treatment and prognosis may motivate some patients to pursue unnecessarily aggressive cancer treatments. Patients desire prognostic information from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, who are important contributors to goals of care discussions and may improve patient understanding and well-being by using restorative rather than combat-oriented language.

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.