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.

Is it okay to choose to receive bad news by telephone? An observational study on psychosocial consequences of diagnostic workup for lung cancer suspicion

BACKGROUND

In-person meeting is considered the gold standard in current communication protocols regarding sensitive information, yet one size may not fit all, and patients increasingly demand or are offered disclosure of bad news by, e.g., telephone. It is unknown how patients' active preference for communication modality affect psychosocial consequences of receiving potentially bad news.

AIM

To explore psychosocial consequences in patients, who themselves chose to have results of lung cancer workup delivered either in-person or by telephone compared with patients randomly assigned to either delivery in a recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

An observational study prospectively including patients referred for invasive workup for suspected lung cancer stratified in those declining (Patient's Own Choice, POC group) and those participating in the RCT. On the day of invasive workup and five weeks later, patients completed a validated, nine-dimension, condition-specific questionnaire, Consequences of Screening in Lung Cancer (COS-LC). Primary outcome: difference in change in COS-LC dimensions between POC and RCT groups.

RESULTS

In total, 151 patients were included in the POC group versus 255 in the RCT. Most (70%) in the POC group chose to have results by telephone. Baseline characteristics and diagnostic outcomes were comparable between POC and RCT groups, and in telephone and in-person subgroups too. We observed no statistically significant between-groups differences in any COS-LC score between POC and RCT groups, or between telephone and in-person subgroups in the POC group.

CONCLUSION

Continually informed patients' choice between in-person or telephone disclosure of results of lung cancer workup is not associated with differences in psychosocial outcomes. The present article supports further use of a simple model for how to prepare the patient for potential bad news.

A qualitative study of interactions with oncologists among patients with advanced lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

To support the care of lung cancer patients, oncologists have needed to stay current on treatment advancements and build relationships with a new group of survivors in an era where lung cancer survivorship has been re-defined. The objectives of the study were to (1) understand the perspectives of advanced lung cancer patients whose tumors have oncogenic alterations about their care experiences with their oncologist(s) and (2) describe the perceptions of advanced lung cancer patients about seeking second opinions and navigating care decisions.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, patients with advanced lung cancer (n = 25) on targeted therapies were interviewed to discuss their ongoing experience with their oncologists. We used deductive and inductive qualitative approaches in the coding of the data. We organized the data using the self-determination framework.

RESULTS

Patients described both positive and negative aspects of their care as related to autonomy, provider competency, and connectedness. Patients sought second opinions for three primary reasons: expertise, authoritative advice, and access to clinical trial opportunities. When there is disagreement in the treatment plan between the primary oncologist and the specialist, there can be confusion and tension, and patients have to make difficult choices about their path forward.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients value interactions that support their autonomy, demonstrate the competency of their providers, and foster connectedness. To ensure that patients receive quality and goal-concordant care, developing decision aids and education materials that help patients negotiate recommendations from two providers is an area that deserves further attention.

Factors related to implementation of an interprofessional communication concept in thoracic oncology: a mixed-methods study

Background

An innovative patient-centred interprofessional communication concept with advanced lung cancer patients (Heidelberg Milestone Communication Approach, MCA) has been developed and implemented. Role changes and interprofessional communication are challenging in a busy outpatient oncology service. The aim of the study was to present attitudes to interprofessional collaboration of professions in thoracic oncology during the implementation of MCA and to explore factors and experiences healthcare team members associate with its implementation.

Methods

In a longitudinal study, 3 of the 4 subscales of the validated German translation of the University of the West of England Interprofessional Questionnaire (UWE-IP-D) were collected prior to implementation of MCA (t0) with follow-up data collections at 4 months (t1), 10 months (t2) and 17 months (t3). Descriptive analysis included calculating subscale sum scores and categorizing each subscale into positive, neutral and negative attitudes. Interviews and focus groups on implementation and interprofessional collaboration in the context of MCA were conducted with healthcare staff. The topics were analysed deductively, guided by the Professional Interactions factor of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework.

Results

The survey with 87 staff (44 nurses, 13 physicians, 12 psycho-social staff, 7 therapists, and 11 others) participating at least once found heterogeneous attitudes. ‘Communication and Teamwork’ and ‘Interprofessional Relationships’ were characterized by primarily positive attitudes. Neutral attitudes to ‘Interprofessional Interaction’ were indicated by the majority of respondents. There were no differences between collection times. Fifteen staff members participated in the interviews and focus groups. The main interprofessional interaction factors associated with implementation concerned the knowledge of the MCA and the impact of the intervention on team roles, on information sharing and on transfer processes between wards. Adaptive processes led to a shift in the perception of responsibilities and interprofessional collaboration.

Conclusions

Positive experiences and potential shortfalls in the implementation were observed. Future introductions of interprofessional communication concepts require further activities which should address the attitudes of healthcare professionals towards interprofessional care.

Trial registration

DRKS00013469 / Date of registration: 22/12/2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-022-00977-6.

Communication around palliative care principles and advance care planning between oncologists, children with advancing cancer and families

BACKGROUND

In medical oncology, palliative care principles and advance care planning are often discussed later in illness, limiting time for conversations to guide goal-concordant care. In pediatric oncology, the frequency, timing and content of communication about palliative care principles and advance care planning remains understudied.

METHODS

We audio-recorded serial disease re-evaluation conversations between oncologists, children with advancing cancer and their families across the illness trajectory until death or 24 months from last disease progression. Content analysis was conducted to determine topic frequencies, timing and communication approaches.

RESULTS

One hundred forty one disease re-evaluation discussions were audio-recorded for 17 patient-parent dyads with advancing cancer. From 2400 min of recorded dialogue, 119 min (4.8%) included discussion about palliative care principles or advance care planning. Most of this dialogue occurred after frank disease progression. Content analysis revealed distinct communication approaches for navigating discussions around goals of care, quality of life, comfort and consideration of limiting invasive interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative care principles are discussed infrequently across evolving illness for children with progressive cancer. Communication strategies for navigating these conversations can inform development of educational and clinical interventions to encourage earlier dialogue about palliative care principles and advance care planning for children with high-risk cancer and their families.

Effects of an Interprofessional Communication Approach on Support Needs, Quality of Life, and Mood of Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Trial

Background

To address the support needs of newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer with limited prognosis, the Milestone Communication Approach (MCA) was developed and implemented. The main elements of the MCA are situation‐specific conversations along the disease trajectory conducted by an interprofessional tandem of physician and nurse. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of MCA on addressing support needs, quality of life, and mood as compared with standard oncological care.

Patients and Methods

A randomized trial was conducted with baseline assessment and follow‐up assessments at 3, 6, and 9 months in outpatients with newly diagnosed lung cancer stage IV at a German thoracic oncology hospital. The primary outcome was the Health System and Information Needs subscale of the Short Form Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS‐SF34‐G) at 3‐month follow‐up. Secondary outcomes included the other subscales of the SCNS‐SF34‐G, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy lung module, the Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety, and the Distress Thermometer.

Results

At baseline, 174 patients were randomized, of whom 102 patients (MCA: n = 52; standard care: n = 50) provided data at 3‐month follow‐up. Patients of the MCA group reported lower information needs at 3‐month follow‐up (mean ± SD, 33.4 ± 27.5; standard care, 43.1 ± 29.9; p = .033). No effects were found for secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

MCA lowered patient‐reported information needs but did not have other effects. MCA contributed to tailored communication because an adequate level of information and orientation set the basis for patient‐centered care.

Implications for Practice

By addressing relevant issues at predefined times, the Milestone Communication Approach provides individual patient‐centered care facilitating the timely integration of palliative care for patients with a limited prognosis. The needs of patients with lung cancer must be assessed and addressed throughout the disease trajectory. Although specific topics may be relevant for all patients, such as information about the disease and associated health care, situations of individual patients and their families must be considered. Additionally, using the short form of the Supportive Care Needs Survey in clinical practice to identify patients’ problems might support individually targeted communication and preference‐sensitive care.

Addressing patient information needs in a timely fashion is of paramount importance for preference‐sensitive decisions and patient‐centered care. This article evaluates the Milestone Communication Approach to oncological care.

Experiencing communication related to knowing the cancer diagnosis and prognosis: A multi-perspective interpretative phenomenological study

PURPOSE

To understand the phenomenon of communication related to knowing the diagnosis and prognosis, by exploring the perspectives of patients with advanced cancer and those of their caregivers, physicians and nurses.

METHODS

Drawing upon a multi-perspective design, a total of 27 semi-structured interviews involving four different groups of stakeholders (7 patients, 7 caregivers, 6 physicians, and 7 nurses) -who were linked by a carer-cared relationship-were conducted in two Oncology Departments of two Italian hospitals. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used to interpret the participants' narratives.

RESULTS

Two overarching themes were identified: The first theme "the «what is it?» and the «what will happen to me?»" illustrates the two different paths of communication of diagnosis and prognosis. The second theme "Matching and mismatching in identifying the others as speakers" shows that not each of the four parties recognizes the others as reciprocal speakers on topics related to diagnosis and prognosis, although all of them display reciprocal communication interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication related to diagnosis and prognosis is often handled by health professionals without a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the communication approach. There is a correspondence between the nurses' perception of their extraneousness to the diagnosis and the prognosis related communication, and the descriptions and perceptions of the nurse's role reported by the other participants. Understanding how the different groups of stakeholders reciprocally interact and influence each other, can help to identify potential positive resources and detect hindrance in the implementation of an effective patient-centered approach, while avoiding silo cultures.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Consideration of sense of coherence in a structured communication approach with stage IV lung cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a qualitative interview study

Objective

Salutogenetic aspects are valuable for consideration in patient-centred care of advanced oncological diseases with a limited life expectancy. The Milestone Communication Approach (MCA), involving physician-nurse tandems, addresses specific challenges and needs over the disease trajectory of patients with stage IV lung cancer and their informal caregivers. This study aims to explore patients’ and informal caregivers’ salutogenetic experiences with the MCA concept.

Methods

This qualitative study used face-to-face semi-structured interviews with patients and informal caregivers. All generated data were audio-recorded, pseudonymised and transcribed verbatim. Data were structured using Qualitative Content Analysis. The material was coded deductively into themes related to the components of sense of coherence (Aaron Antonovsky) and emerging sub-themes. All data was managed and organised in MAXQDA.

Results

In 25 interviews, sense of coherence was referred to with all three components: “Comprehensibility” was supported by information conveyed suitably for the patients; “meaningfulness” was addressed as accepting the situation; and “manageability” led to advance care planning the patients were comfortable with. Patients and informal caregivers experienced the interprofessional tandem as an added value for patient care.

Conclusions

Participants appreciate the MCA in its support for coping with a life-limiting disease. Considering salutogenetic aspects facilitates prognostic awareness and advance care planning. Nevertheless, individual needs of patients and informal caregivers require an individualised application of the MCA.