What are terminally ill cancer patients told about their expected deaths? A study of cancer physicians' self-reports of prognosis disclosure

Perceptions and Expectations: A Study on Prognostic Perception and Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Renal and Bladder Cancer

PURPOSE

Durable complete response rates for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and metastatic bladder cancer (mBC) are low despite new therapy. Palliative care focuses on life extension and quality of life (QoL), not cure. This study aims to investigate patients' perceptions of treatment outcomes in mRCC and mBC and to assess the influence of QoL and optimism levels on these perceptions.

METHODS

From March 15, 2023, to January 15, 2024, a multicenter, cross-sectional online survey was carried out, targeting patients diagnosed with mRCC and mBC. The survey comprised structured questions aimed at evaluating perceptions concerning disease cure, symptom improvement, daily activity performance, and life extension due to treatment. Additionally, to evaluate optimism and QoL, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30.3 QoL questionnaire and life orientation test were implemented. Study on patients' perceptions of treatment outcomes in metastatic kidney and bladder cancer shows high optimism, inaccurate cure beliefs.

RESULTS

In total, 169 patients participated in the survey; the majority of the patients stated their general health status as good (72.2%) and excellent (13.6%). Patients who rated their overall health status as good-excellent had a higher median general QoL and optimism score compared with those who rated it as fair-poor. In all, 85.2% of patients considered the possibility of a cure very likely or likely. Most participants believed treatment could provide symptom relief (30.2% very likely, 49.1% likely), enhanced ability to perform daily activities (28.4% very likely, 55.6% likely), and life extension (32.5% very likely, 53.3% likely). Patients responding very likely and likely to these questions regarding treatment outcomes had higher QoL and optimism scores than those responding a little likely and not possible.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients with mRCC and mBC held inaccurate beliefs about treatment outcomes. Better QoL and optimism were associated with increased inaccuracy.

Estimating survival scenarios in advanced or metastatic gastric and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to summarize survival data from RCTs in patients with GO adenocarcinoma; estimate and explain worst-, typical-, and best-case-scenarios of survival time; and determine if simple multiples of median overall survival (mOS) could estimate these percentiles.

METHODS

We systematically searched RCTs of systemic therapies for GO adenocarcinoma published 2000-2022. The following key percentiles were extracted from overall survival curves: 90th (worst-case), 75th (lower-typical), 25th (upper-typical), and 10th (best-case). We tested if these percentiles could be estimated by simple multiples of mOS: 0.25 of the median for the 90th percentile, 0.5 for the 75th, 2 for the 25th, and 3 for the 10th.

RESULTS

We identified 44 trials (22,447 participants). For first line chemotherapy and immunotherapy combined (CI) trials (n = 3) worst-to-best case survival time ranged from 4 months to not reached, compared to 3-30 months for other trials (n = 27) and 1-23 months for subsequent lines (n = 14). Simple multiples of mOS accurately estimated the following survival percentiles: 90th (n = 3/3 trials), 75th (n = 3/3), and 25th (n = 2/3) in first line CI trials. In other first line trials, the mOS accurately estimated the 90th survival percentile in n = 22/27 trials, 75th percentile in n = 26/27, 25th percentile in 27/27 trials, and 10th percentile in 22/27 trials. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately predicted the 90th, 75th, 25th, and 10th survival percentiles in the majority of trials of second and subsequent lines apart from chemotherapy and immunotherapy only trials.

CONCLUSION

We provide realistic, evidence-based prognostic information as scenarios for survival time which can inform clinical decision-making. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately estimated the percentiles for most groups.

Prognostication: A fading Hippocratic art?

Over the past 75 years modern medicine has advanced in its ability to diagnose and treat many diseases. However, the medical profession's ability to prognosticate the course and outcome of an illness has not satisfied the needs of many patients. Physicians must not lose the ability, or desire, to consider the whole person in relation to a patient's disease. We need to ask ourselves what person has the disease, not what disease the person has. Here I endeavor to demonstrate why Hippocrates valued prognostication highly, how its importance may have faded from the consciousness of current medical practice, and how modern technology is attempting to reinvent or revise it.

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.

Psychological factors and prognostic communication preferences in advanced cancer: multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Communication regarding prognosis to patients with advanced cancer is fundamental for informed medical decision making. Our objective was to analyse (1) the proportion of subjects with advanced cancer who prefer to know their prognosis, (2) the characteristics associated with patients' preference for prognostic information, (3) the psychological factors that impact the preference to know prognosis and 4) the concordance between preference for prognostic information perceived among physicians and patients.

METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional design was adopted. Data were collected from 748 participants with advanced cancer at 15 tertiary hospitals in Spain. Participants completed the following questionnaires: Mental Adjustment to Cancer; Trust in the Physician; Uncertainty in Illness Scale Patient's Prognostic Preferences.

RESULTS

Fifty-two per cent of advanced cancer sufferers preferred to know the prognosis of their disease. Compared with participants who preferred not to know, those who did reported more uncertainty, greater satisfaction with their physician and higher scores on positive attitude (all p=0.001). Thirty-seven per cent of the physicians believed that patients want to know their prognosis, indicating that they underestimate the number of such patients. No significant differences were found regarding preference to know prognosis as a function of sociodemographic and clinical variables.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of individuals with advanced cancer prefer to know the prognosis of their disease. It appears that knowing their prognosis was mainly motivated by a need to maintain a positive attitude, lessen uncertainty and by satisfaction with the physician. It is important to explore patients' preferences for information to offer more personalised communication.

Mortality Conversations Between Male Veterans and Their Providers Prior to Dysvascular Lower Extremity Amputation

BACKGROUND

Among patients facing lower extremity amputation due to dysvascular disease, the mortality risk is very high. Given this, as well as the importance of a patient-centered approach to medical care, informing patients about their possible risk of dying may be important during preoperative shared decision-making. The goal of this investigation was to gain an understanding of patient and provider experiences discussing mortality within the context of amputation within the Veterans Health Administration.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were performed with Veterans with peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes, vascular and podiatric surgeons, and physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians. Interviews were analyzed using team-based content analysis to identify themes related to amputation-level decisions.

RESULTS

We interviewed 22 patients and 21 surgeons and physicians and identified 3 themes related to conversations around mortality: (1) both patients and providers report that mortality conversations are not common prior to amputation; (2) while most providers find value in mortality conversations, some express concerns around engaging in these discussions with patients; and (3) some patients perceive mortality conversations as unnecessary, but many are open to engaging in the conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers may benefit from introducing the topic with patients, including providing the context for why mortality conversations may be valuable, with the understanding that patients can always decline to participate should they not be interested or comfortable discussing this issue.

Prognostication for Patients Receiving Palliative Radiation Therapy

Estimation of patient prognosis plays a central role in guiding decision making for the palliative management of metastatic disease, and a number of statistical models have been developed to provide survival estimates for patients in this context. In this review, we discuss several well-validated survival prediction models for patients receiving palliative radiotherapy to sites outside of the brain. Key considerations include the type of statistical model, model performance measures and validation procedures, studies' source populations, time points used for prognostication, and details of model output. We then briefly discuss underutilization of these models, the role of decision support aids, and the need to incorporate patient preference in shared decision making for patients with metastatic disease who are candidates for palliative radiotherapy.

Effects of a communication training for oncologists on early addressing palliative and end-of-life care in advanced cancer care (PALLI-COM): a randomized, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

In advanced cancer care, early communication about palliative care (PC) and end-of-life (EoL)-related issues is recommended, but is often impeded by physicians' communication insecurities. We investigated the effect of a newly developed compact communication skills training 'PALLI-COM' on oncologists' competencies to early address PC/EoL-related issues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) with an intervention group (IG; 2 × 90 min training) and a wait list control group (CG) at five sites. At two assessment points, participating oncologists led videotaped medical consultations with simulated patients (SPs) via a privacy compliant video conference platform. SPs were represented by trained actors. The taped conversations were rated for primary outcome (communication skills assessed by adapted COM-ON-checklist and COM-ON-coaching rating scales) by raters blinded for study group. Secondary outcomes included oncologists' self-reported communication skills (Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale, Thanatophobia-Scale, Communication about End of Life Survey, study-specific items) as well as external rating of the SPs. Univariate analyses of covariance with baseline adjustment were used to analyze intervention effects.

RESULTS

A total of 141 oncologists [age: mean (standard deviation) = 32.7 (6.3) years, 60% female (n_IG = 73, n_CG = 68)] participated. Following intervention, the IG showed significantly more improvement in four out of five assessed communication skills: 'reacting to emotions and showing empathy', 'pointing out opportunities and giving hope', 'addressing the EoL' and 'explaining the concept of PC'. IG participants also improved more than CG participants in almost all secondary outcomes assessed by participants and SPs: oncologists' self-efficacy, attitudes towards caring for terminally ill patients, communication strategies and confidence in dealing with PC/EoL-related issues as well as communication quality from the SPs' perspective.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate that the compact communication skills training PALLI-COM increases oncologists' competencies in early addressing PC/EoL-related issues from different perspectives. Implementation in routine oncology residency might improve advanced cancer care by strengthening these communication skills.

Is It Worth Knowing That You Might Die Tomorrow? Revisiting the Ethics of Prognosis Disclosure

Ethical discourse on prognosis disclosure is not yet well established. The core of the problem continues to be the dilemma between the right of self-determination and non-maleficence of patients. The prognosis disclosure policy based on Kantian autonomy provides a good solution for the problem. The policy includes demand for strict truth telling and its compatibility with patients' best interest. However, there remains a discrepancy between theory and practice, especially when prognosis is disclosed just prior to their death. Kantian theory of prognosis is supplemented by a moralistic perspective. The moralistic perspective places high importance on temporality and relationships with others, which all human beings inherently possess. From the moralistic viewpoint, decisions about prognosis disclosure at the final stages of life must be individualized in order to be authentically autonomous. The decision to disclose a prognosis or not can only be determined by the relationships fostered over time with patients.

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.

An Exploratory Study on Information Manipulation by Doctors: Awareness, Actual State, and Ethical Tolerance

(1) Background: To what extent is information manipulation by doctors acceptable? To answer this question, we conducted an exploratory study aimed at obtaining basic data on descriptive ethics for considering this issue. (2) Methods: A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted on a large sample (n = 3305) of doctors. The participants were queried on (1) whether they consider that information manipulation is necessary (awareness), (2) whether they have actually manipulated information (actual state), and (3) their ethical tolerance. (3) Result: The response rate was 28.7%. Sixty percent of the doctors responded that information manipulation to avoid harm to patients is necessary (awareness), that they have actually manipulated information (actual state), and that information manipulation is ethically acceptable. (4) Conclusion: While the present survey was conducted among doctors in Japan, previous studies have reported similar findings in the United States and Europe. Based on our analysis, we hypothesize that a relationship of trust between patients and medical personnel is crucial and that information manipulation is not needed when such a relationship has been established.

A prospective cross-sectional survey comparing patient and provider expectations regarding ovarian cancer prognosis

•

Providers believe prognostic discussions are important for ovarian cancer patients.

•

Providers report having prognostic conversations more often than patients.

•

Ovarian cancer patients and providers have different expectations surrounding treatment, remission, and survival.

•

Age, marital status, religion, and cancer stage may affect patient perceptions of ovarian cancer prognosis.

Introduction

There is limited data comparing patient and physician expectations regarding ovarian cancer prognosis. Our primary objective was to compare physician and patient estimates of survival to 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years; secondary objectives included comparing provider and patient responses on the likelihood of requiring future treatments and categorizing patient and provider preferences regarding communication about prognosis.

Methods

A prospective cross-sectional survey was delivered to 10 gynecologic oncology providers and 50 adult ovarian cancer patients from November 2015-April 2016 at one institution. Descriptive statistics were used to categorize survey answers and compare survey answers between patients and providers; multivariable logistic regression evaluated patient survey responses.

Results

All providers (100%) believed treating providers should discuss prognosis and 90% reported having prognostic conversations with patients, compared to 63%, 37%, and 4% of patients who reported discussing prognosis, living wills/advance directives, and palliative care/hospice services, respectively, with their provider. Compared to their provider, patients gave significantly lower estimations of requiring any future therapy (mean score 84.6 vs 74, p <.001) and future chemotherapy (mean score 84.1 vs 69.8, p <.001) and significantly higher estimations of requiring future surgery (mean score 23.3 vs 40, p <.001), achieving remission (mean score 33.5 vs 47.5, p =.009), survival to 1 year (mean score 77.1 vs 86.4, p =.002), and survival to 5 years (mean score 40.5 vs 61.3, p <.001).

Conclusions

Although gynecologic oncology providers believe it is important to discuss prognosis and end-of-life care, there are gaps in communication, knowledge, and expectations between providers and ovarian cancer patients.

Advance Directives in Oncology and Haematology: A Long Way to Go-A Narrative Review

Patients living with cancer often experience serious adverse events due to their condition or its treatments. Those events may lead to a critical care unit admission or even result in death. One of the most important but challenging parts of care is to build a care plan according to the patient’s wishes, meeting their goals and values. Advance directives (ADs) allow everyone to give their preferences in advance regarding life sustaining treatments, continuation, and withdrawal or withholding of treatments in case one is not able to speak their mind anymore. While the absence of ADs is associated with a greater probability of receiving unwanted intensive care around the end of their life, their existence correlates with the respect of the patient’s desires and their greater satisfaction. Although progress has been made to promote ADs’ completion, they are still scarcely used among cancer patients in many countries. Several limitations to their acceptance and use can be detected. Efforts should be made to provide tailored solutions for the identified hindrances. This narrative review aims to depict the situation of ADs in the oncology context, and to highlight the future areas of improvement.

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

BACKGROUND

Prognostic disclosure is essential to informed decision making in oncology, yet many oncologists are unsure how to successfully facilitate this discussion. This scoping review determines what prognostic communication models exist, compares and contrasts these models, and explores the supporting evidence.

METHOD

A protocol was created for this study using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols extension for Scoping Reviews. Comprehensive literature searches of electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL were executed to identify relevant publications between 1971 and 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 1532 articles were identified, of which 78 met inclusion criteria and contained 5 communication models. Three of these have been validated in randomised controlled trials (the Serious Illness Conversation Guide, the Four Habits Model and the ADAPT acronym) and have demonstrated improved objective communication measures and patient reported outcomes. All three models emphasise the importance of exploring patients' illness understanding and treatment preferences, communicating prognosis and responding to emotion.

CONCLUSION

Communicating prognostic estimates is a core competency skill in advanced cancer care. This scoping review highlights available communication models and identifies areas in need of further assessment. Such areas include how to maintain learnt communication skills for lifelong practice, how to assess patient and caregiver understanding during and after these conversations, and how to best scale these protocols at the institutional and national levels.

Expectations of treatment outcomes in patients with spinal metastases; what do we tell our patients? A qualitative study

Background

Realistic pre-treatment expectations are important and have been associated with post-treatment health related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient expectations are greatly influenced by physicians, as they are the primary resource for information. This study aimed to explore the communication practices of physicians regarding treatment outcomes for patients with spinal metastases, and physician experiences with patients’ pre-treatment expectations.

Methods

An international qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with physicians routinely involved in treating metastatic spine disease (spine surgeons, radiation and medical oncologists, and rehabilitation specialists) was conducted. Physicians were interviewed about the content and extent of information they provide to patients with spinal metastases regarding treatment options, risks and treatment outcomes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic coding network.

Results

After 22 interviews data saturation occurred. The majority of the physicians indicated that they currently do not establish patients’ pre-treatment expectations, despite acknowledging the importance of these expectations. Spine surgeons often believe that patient expectations are disproportionate. Physicians expressed they manage expectations by detailing the most common risks and providing a broad but nonspecific overview of treatment outcomes. While the palliative intent seems clear to the physicians, their perception is that the implications of a palliative treatment remains elusive to most patients.

Conclusion

This study highlights the current gap in patient-physician communication regarding expectations of treatment outcomes of patients with spinal metastases. These results warrant further research to improve communication practices and determine the effect of patient expectations on patient reported outcomes in this population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08993-0.

'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.'

Ethics consultations in neuro-oncology

Background

Management of patients with brain tumors can lead to ethical and decisional dilemmas. The aim of this study was to characterize ethical conflicts encountered in neuro-oncologic patients.

Methods

Retrospective review of ethics consultations performed upon patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors at a tertiary cancer center. An ethics consultation database was examined to characterize ethical conflicts, contextual factors, and interventions by the consultation team.

Results

Fifty consultations were reviewed; 28 (56%) patients were women, median age 54 (range 4-86); 27 (54%) patients had a primary central nervous system malignancy; 20 (40%) had brain metastasis. At the time of consultations, 41 (82%) patients lacked decisional capacity; 48 (96%) had a designated surrogate decision maker; 3 (6%) had an advance directive outlining wishes regarding medical treatment; 12 (24%) had a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) order. Ethical conflicts centered upon management of end-of-life (EOL) circumstances in 37 (72%) of cases; of these, 30 did not have decisional capacity. The most common ethical issues were DNAR status, surrogate decision making, and request for nonbeneficial treatment. Consultants resolved conflicts by facilitating decision making for incapacitated patients in 30 (60%) cases, communication between conflicting parties in 10 (20%), and re-articulation of patients' previously stated wishes in 6 (12%).

Conclusions

Decisional capacity at EOL represents the primary ethical challenge in care of neuro-oncologic patients. Incomplete awareness among surrogate decision makers of patients' prognosis and preferences contributes to communication gaps and dilemmas. Early facilitation of communication between patients, caregivers, and medical providers may prevent or mitigate conflicts and allow the enactment of patients' goals and values.

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.

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.

Factors influencing length of survival in ambulatory palliative care - a cross sectional study based on secondary data

BACKGROUND

Quality of life and patient self-determination are key elements in successful palliative care. To achieve these goals, a robust prediction of the remaining survival time is useful as it can provide patients and their relatives with information for individual goal setting including appropriate priorities. The Aim of our study was to assess factors that influence survival after enrollment into ambulatory palliative care.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, multicenter study (n = 14 study centers) clinical records of all palliative care patients who were treated in 2017 were extracted and underwent statistical analysis. The main outcome criterion was the association of survival time with clinical characteristics such as age, type of disease, symptoms and performance status.

RESULTS

A total of 6282 cases were evaluated. Median time of survival was 26 days (95 % CI: 25-27 days). The strongest association for an increased hazard ratio was found for the following characteristics: moderate/severe weakness (aHR: 1.91; 95 % CI: 1.27-2.86) Karnofsky score 10-30 (aHR: 1.80; 95 % CI: 1.67-1.95), and age > 85 (aHR: 1.50; 95 % CI: 1.37-1.64). Surprisingly, type of disease (cancer vs. non-cancer) was not associated with a change in survival time (aHR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.96-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cross-sectional study, the most relevant predictor for a short survival time in specialized ambulatory palliative care was the performance status while type of disease was irrelevant to survival.

Communicating prognostic information: what do oncologists think patients with incurable cancer should be told?

BACKGROUND

People with incurable cancer require information about their prognosis to make informed decisions about their future.

AIMS

To determine the frequency, form and documentation of prognostic discussions between oncologists and their patients with incurable cancer.

METHODS

We surveyed medical oncologists in Australia and New Zealand about their practices communicating prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 206 medical oncologists completed the survey. Respondent characteristics were: median age 40 years (range 27-75), female 51%, trainee 22%; and 71% had completed specific training on communicating prognosis. Respondents reported discussing prognosis with a patient a median of 10 times per month (interquartile range 4-15); 88% reported explaining that 'the cancer is incurable' to all their patients with incurable cancer and 84% reported always or usually providing a quantitative estimate of survival time. The preferred method for explaining expected survival time (EST) was providing 'multiple ranges of time with probabilities, for example best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios' (52% of respondents). The most frequently reported barriers to discussing EST were: 'family members requesting that prognostic information not be discussed' (57% of respondents), and 'not knowing the EST' (46% of respondents). Twenty percent reported always documenting prognostic discussions and the EST in the patient's medical record, and 11% reported always documenting this information in their letters to other doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most oncologists reported providing quantitative estimates of EST to their patients with incurable cancer, but very few reported documenting this information. Methods to help oncologists estimate, explain and document survival time are needed to improve communication of prognosis.

Associations of insurance, urbanity, and comorbidity with types of palliative care received by patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Our study examined some of the social and medical factors associated with receiving pain palliation alone over more aggressive cytoreductive palliative measures, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation among patients with head and neck cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the National Cancer Database 2016 for data analysis. Patient and tumor characteristics were examined using bivariate analysis and logistic regression to identify their association with receiving pain palliation alone versus cytoreductive palliation treatment.

RESULTS

Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, insurance status (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.50, p < 0.001), urbanity (OR: 1.73, 95%CI: 1.21-2.46, p = 0.002), and Charlson-Deyo scores greater than 3 (OR: 2.49, 95%CI: 1.38-4.47, p = 0.002) were significantly associated with receipt of pain palliation alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be aware of non-health-related factors, such as insurance status, that may influence patients' receipt of treatments in head and neck cancer.

Ethical Challenges in Pediatric Oncology Care and Clinical Trials

The care of pediatric cancer patients is a vast departure from cancer care of adults. While the available treatment modalities-chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery-are the same, the diseases, care-delivery, and outcomes differ greatly. And just as 'children are not just little adults,' pediatric bioethics occupies a distinct place within the broader field of bioethics. In this chapter, we will begin with an introduction to fundamental principles and frameworks for understanding ethical issues in pediatrics, highlighting the triadic nature of medical decision-making between a physician, the child-patient, and the child's parent as the surrogate decision-maker. We will then delve into further details of how these principles and frameworks shape the care of children with cancer, examining specific ethical challenges commonly encountered by pediatric oncologists. We will traverse this landscape by examining issues involving (a) informed consent; (b) research involving children; (c) end of life; (d) genetic and genomic testing; and (e) professionalism. We also examine ethical challenges in clinical research, in children and more broadly. While not an exhaustive exploration of the myriad ethical issues one might encounter in pediatric cancer medicine and clinical trials, this chapter provides readers with a foundation for further reading.

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

CONTEXT

Many advanced patients with cancer have unrealistic prognostic expectations.

OBJECTIVES

We tested whether offering life expectancy (LE) statistics within palliative chemotherapy (PC) education promotes realistic expectations.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, patients with advanced colorectal and pancreatic cancers initiating first or second line PC were randomized to usual care versus a PC educational tool with optional LE information. Surveys at two weeks and three months assessed patients' review of the LE module and their reactions; at three months, patients estimated their LE and reported occurrence of prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) discussions. Wilcoxon tests and proportional odds models evaluated between-arm differences in LE self-estimates, and how realistic those estimates were (based on cancer type and line of treatment).

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2017, 92 patients were randomized to the intervention and 94 to usual care. At baseline most patients (80.9%) wanted "a lot" or "as much information as possible" about the impact of chemotherapy on LE. Among patients randomized to the intervention, 52.0% reviewed the LE module by two weeks and 66.7% by three months-of whom 88.2% reported the information was important, 31.4% reported it was upsetting, and 3.9% regretted reviewing it. Overall, patients' LE self-estimates were very optimistic; 71.4% of patients with colorectal cancer estimated greater than five years; 50% pancreatic patients estimated greater than two years. The intervention had no effect on the length or realism of patients' LE self-estimates, or on the occurrence of prognostic or EOL discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering LE information within a PC educational intervention had no effect on patients' prognostic expectations.

Evaluation of a communication skills training to facilitate addressing palliative care related topics in advanced cancer patients: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (PALLI-KOM)

Background

Early integration of palliative care concurrently to standard cancer care is associated with several benefits for patients and their caregivers. However, communication barriers on part of the caring physicians often impede a timely referral to palliative care. This study describes the protocol of the evaluation of a communication skills training aiming to strengthen the ability of physicians to address palliative care related topics adequately and early during disease trajectory.

Methods

We will implement a communication skills training and evaluate it within a prospective, multi-centered, two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT), which will be conducted at four sites in Germany. Eligible subjects are all physicians treating patients with advanced cancer in their daily routine. An intervention group (IG) receiving a group training will be compared to a wait-list control group (CG) receiving the training after completion of data collection. At pre- and post-measurement points, participants will conduct videotaped conversations with standardized simulated patients (SP). Primary outcome will be the external rating of communication skills and consulting competencies addressing palliative care related topics. Secondary outcomes on core concepts of palliative care, basic knowledge, attitudes, confidence and self-efficacy will be assessed by standardized questionnaires and self-developed items. A further external assessment of the quality of physician-patient-interaction will be conducted by the SP. Longitudinal quantitative data will be analyzed using covariate-adjusted linear mixed-models.

Discussion

If the communication skills training proves to be effective, it will provide a feasible intervention to promote an earlier communication of palliative care related topics in the care of advanced cancer patients. This would help to further establish early integration of palliative care as it is recommended by national and international guidelines.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017025 (date of registration: 4 June 2019).

Physicians' clinical prediction of survival in head and neck cancer patients in the palliative phase

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with incurable head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relevant topic. The mean survival of these patients is 5 months but may vary from weeks to more than 3 years. Discussing the prognosis early in the disease trajectory enables patients to make well-considered end-of-life choices, and contributes to a better quality of life and death. However, physicians often are reluctant to discuss prognosis, partly because of the concern to be inaccurate. This study investigated the accuracy of physicians' clinical prediction of survival of palliative HNC patients.

METHODS

This study was part of a prospective cohort study in a tertiary cancer center. Patients with incurable HNC diagnosed between 2008 and 2011 (n = 191), and their treating physician were included. Analyses were conducted between July 2018 and February 2019. Patients' survival was clinically predicted by their physician ≤3 weeks after disclosure of the palliative diagnosis. The clinical prediction of survival in weeks (CPS) was based on physicians' clinical assessment of the patient during the outpatient visits. More than 25% difference between the actual survival (AS) and the CPS was regarded as a prediction error. In addition, when the difference between the AS and CPS was 2 weeks or less, this was always considered as correct.

RESULTS

In 59% (n = 112) of cases survival was overestimated. These patients lived shorter than predicted by their physician (median AS 6 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). In 18% (n = 35) of the cases survival was correctly predicted. The remaining 23% was underestimated (median AS 35 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). Besides the differences in AS and CPS, no other significant differences were found between the three groups. There was worse accuracy when predicting survival closer to death: out of the 66 patients who survived 6 weeks or shorter, survival was correctly predicted in only eight (12%).

CONCLUSION

Physicians tend to overestimate the survival of palliative HNC patients. This optimism can result in suboptimal use of palliative and end-of-life care. The future development of a prognostic model that provides more accurate estimates, could help physicians with personalized prognostic counseling.

Difficulties Doctors Experience during Life-Sustaining Treatment Discussion after Enactment of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate difficulties doctors experience during life-sustaining treatment (LST) discussion with seriously ill patients and their families after enactment of the LST Decisions Act in February 2018.

Materials and Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a tertiary hospital in the Republic of Korea in August 2019. Six hundred eighty-six doctors who care for seriously ill patients were given a structured questionnaire, and difficulties during the discussion were examined.

Results

One hundred thirty-two doctors completed the questionnaire. Eighty-five percent answered they treat cancer patients. Most (86.4%) experienced considerable difficulties during LST discussions (mean score, 7.4±1.6/10). The two most common difficulties were communication with patients and family and determining when to discuss LST. Two-thirds of doctors found direct discussions with the patient difficult and said they would initiate LST discussions only with family. LST discussions were actually initiated later than considered appropriate. When medically assessing whether the patient is imminently dying, 56% of doctors experienced disagreements with other doctors, which could affect their decisions.

Conclusion

This study found that most doctors experienced serious difficulties regarding communication with patients and family and medical assessment of dying process during LST discussions. To alleviate these difficulties, further institutional support is needed to improve the LST discussion between doctors, patients, and family.

Investigating the association between physicians self-efficacy regarding communication skills and risk of "burnout"

Background

Breaking bad news (BBN) may be associated with increasing risk of burnout in practising physicians. However, there is little research on the association between the way bad news is broken and burnout. We investigated the association between physicians’ self-efficacy regarding communication to patients and risk of burnout.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study by proposing an ad-hoc survey exploring attitudes and practice regarding BBN and the Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Service Survey to 379 physicians from two University Hospitals in Italy. Associations were assessed by multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

Two-hundred twenty-six (60%) physicians returned the questionnaires. 76% of physicians acquired communication skills by observing mentors or colleagues, 64% considered BBN as discussing a poor prognosis, 56% reported discussing prognosis as the most difficult task, 38 and 37% did not plan a BBN encounter and considered it stressful. The overall burnout rate was 59%. Considering BBN a stressful task was independently associated with high risk of burnout (OR 3.01; p = 0.013). Planning the encounter (OR = 0.43, p = 0.037), mastering communication skills (OR = 0.19, p = 0.034) and the self-evaluation as good or very good at BBN (OR 0.32; 0.15 to 0.71; p = 0.0) were associated with low risk of burnout.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that some physicians’ BBN attitudes and knowledge of conceptual frameworks may influence the risk of burnout and support the notion that increasing knowledge about communication skills may protect clinicians from burnout. Further research is needed in this area.

Prognostic prediction tools and clinician communication: a qualitative study of the effect of the STUMBL tool on clinical practice

BACKGROUND

In recent years, researchers and clinicians have been developing prognostic prediction tools (PPTs) as a way of identifying patients at risk of deterioration. The use of PPTs in the clinical environment not only impacts the risk of adverse outcomes for patients, but the use of these tools also effect clinical practice. Much attention has been paid to the clinical performance of PPTs. But more insight is needed on how the use of PPTs impacts clinical practice. The objective of this study was to map some of the ways in which PPTs effect clinical practice. The STUMBL (STUdy evaluating the impact of a prognostic model for Management of BLunt chest wall trauma patients) feasibility trial evaluated the use of a new prognostic prediction tool (PPT) to guide the management blunt chest wall trauma patients in the emergency departments (ED). The trial was undertaken between October 2016 and September 2018 and conducted at four sites in England and Wales. Nested within the feasibility trial was a qualitative study aimed at understanding how ED clinicians experienced and used the PPT. The qualitative methods included a focus group and telephone interviews with 9 ED clinicians. This study focused on participant perceptions of the feasibility and use of the STUMBL tool on clinical practice in the ED.

RESULTS

Clinical practice is reshaped as a result of the introduction of the STUMBL PPT into the clinical environment. The PPT enhanced reflexive awareness of prognostic practice; facilitated communication between patients and professionals; helps to guide patient outcomes; and provides a common ground for clinician discussion on prognostication.

CONCLUSIONS

The qualitative data collected offered useful insights into the ways in which the tool changes clinical practice. This was a small study of the effect of one kind of PPT on clinical practice. Nevertheless, this study maps areas in which clinical practice is affected by the introduction of a PPT into the clinical environment. More research is needed to better understand these effects, and to understand how these tools become embedded in clinical practice over the longer term.

Prognostication in Serious Illness

Prognostication is a vital aspect of decision making because it provides patients and families with information to establish realistic and achievable goals of care, is used in determining eligibility for certain benefits, and helps in targeting interventions to those likely to benefit. Prognostication consists of 3 components: clinicians use their clinical judgment or other tools to estimate the probability of an individual developing a particular outcome over a specific period of time; this prognostic estimate is communicated in accordance with the patient's information preferences; the prognostic estimate is interpreted by the patient or surrogate and used in clinical decision making.

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.

Taboo Topics in Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology: Strategies for Managing Challenging but Important Conversations Central to Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship

Research on adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer has flourished over the past decade, underscoring the unique medical and psychosocial needs of this vulnerable group. A cancer diagnosis during adolescence and young adulthood intersects with the developmental trajectory of AYAs, derailing critical physical, social, and emotional development. AYAs face these abrupt life changes needing age-appropriate information and resources to offset these challenges. Greater attention is needed to address AYA-specific concerns on reproductive and sexual health, financial security and independence, emotional well-being, social support, and end-of-life care. If these unique needs are unaddressed, this can adversely affect AYAs' health care engagement and overall quality of life, increasing their risk for cancer-related morbidity and early mortality. In particular, health care decisions made during treatment have important implications for AYA patients' future health. Oncology clinicians are well positioned to address AYA patients' concerns by anticipating and addressing the challenges this age group is likely to face. In this paper, we explore several core topics that affect AYAs' quality of life and that can be challenging to address. Starting from the moment of diagnosis, through cancer treatment and post-treatment survivorship, and into end of life, each section highlights critical developmental-centric life domains that are affected by the cancer experience. Specifically, we discuss resources, tools, and strategies to navigate these challenging conversations. Taking a risk-reduction approach that invites two-way communication and facilitates referral to age-appropriate resources would help destigmatize these experiences and, in turn, would support the provision of compassionate and effective age-concordant care to this vulnerable group.

The Impacts of Prognostic Awareness on Mood and Quality of Life Among Patients With Advanced Cancer

BACKGROUND

Accurate awareness of the prognosis is an important factor in the treatment decision of patients with advanced cancer; however, prognostic disclosure is still subject to debate because it can reduce patient's satisfaction and increase depression.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to assess whether patients' prognostic awareness is associated with decreased quality of life (QoL) or increased depressive mood in patients with advanced cancer.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, 386 patients with advanced cancer were recruited across 3 periods from December 2016 to August 2018. The outcome of this study was a change in QoL and depression according to the patients' prognostic awareness at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.

RESULTS

This study found significant differences in changes of QoL based on patients' prognostic awareness. From baseline to 3 months, emotional functioning (P = .039), pain (P = .042), existential well-being (P = .025), and social support (P = .038) subscale scores improved significantly more in those with lack of prognostic awareness. Over 6 months, the group without prognostic awareness improved significantly in terms of physical functioning (P = .037), emotional functioning (P = .002), nausea/vomiting (P = .048), and constipation (P = .039) subscale scores and existential well-being scores (P = .025). No significant difference between the groups was found in terms of depression.

CONCLUSION

Accurate prognostic awareness may pose harm and may provide no additional benefits in terms of QoL and mood among patients with advanced cancer for a short period of time.

"I'd Want to Know, Because a Year's Not a Long Time to Prepare for a Death": Role of Prognostic Information in Shared Decision Making among Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Context: Increasing emphasis on patient-centered care has led to highlighted importance of shared decision making, which better aligns medical decisions with patient care preferences. Effective shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment requires prognostic understanding, without which patients may receive treatment inconsistent with personal preferences. Objectives: To assess MBC patient and provider perspectives on the role of prognostic information in treatment decision making. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with MBC patients and community oncologists and separate focus groups involving lay navigators, nurses, and academic oncologists. Qualitative analysis utilized a content analysis approach that included a constant comparative method to generate themes. Results: Of 20 interviewed patients with MBC, 30% were African American. Academic oncologists were mostly women (60%), community oncologists were all Caucasian, and nurses were all women and 28% African American. Lay navigators were all African American and predominately women (86%). Five emergent themes were identified. (1) Most patients wanted prognostic information but differed in when they wanted to have this conversation, (2) Emotional distress and discomfort was a critical reason for not discussing prognosis, (3) Religious beliefs shaped preferences for prognostic information, (4) Health care professionals differed on prognostic information delivery timing, and (5) Providers acknowledged that an individualized approach taking into account patient values and preferences would be beneficial. Conclusion: Most MBC patients wanted prognostic information, yet varied in when they wanted this information. Understanding why patients want limited or unrestricted prognostic information can inform oncologists' efforts toward shared decision making.

Pilot Trial of a Combined Oncologist-Patient-Caregiver Communication Intervention in Singapore

PURPOSE

High-quality end-of-life cancer care requires oncologists to communicate effectively and patients/caregivers to be participatory. However, most communication interventions target either but not both. We aimed to pilot a potentially disseminable combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention to improve oncologist empathic responses, discussions of prognosis and goals of care, and patient/caregiver participation. We assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy.

METHODS

Between June 2018 and January 2019, we conducted a pilot 2-arm cluster trial in Singapore, randomly assigning 10 oncologists in a 1:1 ratio to receive the combined intervention or usual care. Intervention arm oncologists received online communication skills training, and their patients received a brief prompt sheet before consultations. We audio recorded consultations with 60 patients with stage IV solid malignancy and analyzed 30 in the postintervention phase. The study was not powered for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Participation rates for oncologists and patients were 100% and 63%, respectively. All oncologists completed the online training within an average of 4.5 weeks; 73% of the patients selected at least 1 question in the prompt sheet. Compared with the control arm, intervention arm oncologists had more empathic responses in total (relative risk [RR], 1.66) and for every patient/caregiver negative emotion (RR, 2.01). Their consultations were more likely to involve discussions of prognosis (RR, 3.00) and goals of care, and their patients were more likely to ask a prognosis-related question (RR, 2.00; P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

The combined oncologist-patient/caregiver intervention is feasible and acceptable and has the potential to improve communication within consultations.

Clinicians' Perspectives on the Duty to Inform Patients About Medical Aid-in-Dying

Background: As of 2019, ten jurisdictions in the United States have authorized physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a terminally ill patient for the purpose of hastening death. Relatively little bioethics scholarship has addressed the question of whether physicians have an obligation to inform qualifying patients about aid-in-dying (AID) in permissive jurisdictions and little is known about providers' actual communication practices with respect to this issue. Methods: One hundred and forty-four in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed using an inductive analytic approach as part of the Vermont Study on Aid-in-Dying. Results: Seventeen respondents, 14 physicians and 3 nurse practitioners, met the inclusion criteria for this sub-study. Eleven respondents indicated that they at least sometimes inform patients about AID. Respondents described multiple factors that influence whether or not they might initiate discussions of AID, including the importance of informing patients of their options for end-of-life care, worries about undue influence, and worries about the potential effects on the patient-provider relationship. For those providers who do initiate discussion of AID at least some of the time, attention to the particulars of each individual patient's situation and the context of the discussion appear to play a role in shaping communication about AID. Conclusions: While initiating a clinical discussion of AID is undoubtedly challenging, our study provides compelling descriptive evidence that some medical providers who support AID do not unilaterally follow the conventional bioethics wisdom holding that they ought to wait for patients to introduce the topic of AID. Future research should investigate how to approach these discussions so as to minimize ethical worries about undue influence or potential negative consequences.

Toward Understanding the Relationship Between Prioritized Values and Preferences for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Seriously Ill Adults

CONTEXT

Prioritizing among potentially conflicting end-of-life values may help patients discriminate among treatments and allow clinicians to align treatments with values.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate end-of-life values that patients prioritize when facing explicit trade-offs and identify predictors of patients whose values and treatment preferences seem inconsistent.

METHODS

Analysis of surveys from a multi-center cluster-randomized trial of patients with serious illness. Respondents prioritized end-of-life values and identified cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in two health states.

RESULTS

Of 535 patients, 60% prioritized relief of discomfort over extending life, 17% prioritized extending life over relief of discomfort, and 23% were unsure. Patients prioritizing extending life were most likely to prefer CPR, with 93% preferring CPR in current health and 67% preferring CPR if dependent on others, compared with 69% and 21%, respectively, for patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, and 78% and 33%, respectively, for patients unsure of their prioritized value (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Among patients prioritizing relief of discomfort, preference for CPR in current health was less likely among older patients (odds ratio 0.958 per year; 95% CI 0.935, 0.981) and more likely with better self-perceived health (odds ratio 1.402 per level of health; 95% CI 1.090, 1.804).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians face challenges as they clarify patient values and align treatments with values. Patients' values predicted CPR preferences, but a substantial proportion of patients expressed CPR preferences that appeared potentially inconsistent with their primary value. Clinicians should question assumptions about relationships between values and CPR preferences. Further research is needed to identify ways to use values to guide treatment decisions.

Feasibility and perception of a question prompt list in outpatient cancer care

Introduction

Management of cancer is often characterized by difficult decisions. The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS) has developed the “Know Yourself” tool, a question prompt list (QPL) to enable patients to participate in these decisions.

Methods

We investigated the feasibility of using the NCCS tool by oncologists and their patients with cancer in a before-and-after pilot study at a tertiary medical center. We also measured patient reported decision preparedness, anxiety, satisfaction with care, trust in physician, discussion of care with their primary care physician (PCP), and general state of health, and solicited feedback from clinicians and patients on use of the form.

Results

Ninety patients and fifteen clinicians participated. Most patients reported the Tool was easy to use (91%) and would recommend it to others (73%) however fewer reported discussing the Tool at the visit (31%) or felt that it improved the quality of care (45%) or communication with the oncologist (56%). Clinicians reported Tool use in only 16 of 60 visits (27%); in these visits the Tool was helpful in identifying areas of concern (74%), guiding the clinical interaction (67%), promoting communication (62%), identifying areas of need (70%), and improving quality of care (71%). Decision preparedness, trust in physicians, uncertainty about care, anxiety, patient satisfaction and discussion of care with the PCP was unchanged with Tool use compared to non-use.

Conclusions

The Know Yourself tool had poor uptake but was favorably received among both patients and clinicians who used it. These findings suggest some patients could benefit from QPLs. Future work should test how implementation strategies might achieve greater use.

Preferences Regarding End-of-Life Care Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Results From a Comprehensive Multicenter Survey in Japan

CONTEXT

Patient preferences influence end-of-life (EOL) care which patients receive. However, preferences regarding EOL care among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer population remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to evaluate preferences regarding EOL care among AYA cancer population.

METHODS

We evaluated preferences regarding EOL care as a part of a comprehensive multicenter questionnaire study investigating the experience and needs of Japanese AYA cancer population.

RESULTS

A total of 349 AYA cancer population (213 AYA cancer patients and 136 AYA cancer survivors) were evaluated. Eighty-six percent (296/344), 53% (180/338), 88% (301/341), and 61% (207/342) of participants with valid response preferred to have prognostic disclosure, receive palliative chemotherapy for incurable cancer with limited efficacy at the expense of considerable toxicity, actively use palliative care, and stay home at EOL, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the preference regarding prognostic disclosure was associated positively with no child status (odds ratio [OR] = 3.05, P = 0.003) and negatively with history of chemotherapy (OR = 0.23, P = 0.009), the preference regarding palliative chemotherapy for incurable cancer with limited efficacy at the expense of considerable toxicity was associated positively with status under active cancer treatment (OR = 1.74, P = 0.03), and the preference of staying home at EOL was positively associated with anxiety (OR = 1.72, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This study elucidated preferences regarding EOL care among Japanese AYA cancer population. These findings may help health care practitioners to have better understanding of preferences regarding EOL care among this population.

Prognosis Reconsidered in Light of Ancient Insights-From Hippocrates to Modern Medicine

Whereas modern clinicians are often reluctant to discuss prognosis with their patients, such discussions were central to medical practice in ancient Greece. A historical analysis has the potential to explain the reasons for this difference in prognostic practices and provide insights into overcoming current challenges. Many scholars consider prognosis to be the principal scientific achievement of the Hippocratic tradition. The earliest treatise on the subject, On Prognostics, defines prognosis broadly as "foreseeing and foretelling, by the side of the sick, the present, the past, and the future." This definition makes clear that prognosis is not simply about predicting the future, but also involves an appreciation for the continuity of past, present, and future as sequences of connected events, or trajectories, that can be pieced together into a comprehensive story of the patient's health. In modern medicine, prognosis has lagged behind diagnosis and treatment in its establishment as a central component of medical care. An important basis for understanding this lies in the paradigm change that occurred with the discovery of pathogens as agents of disease, shifting attention toward individual diseases and away from diseased individuals. With this shift, diagnostics and treatments advanced dramatically and prognosis fell to the background. More recent attempts to advance prognosis have focused on narrower uses of the term, such as estimates of life expectancy and mortality risk. However, physicians have expressed a number of reservations about the use of such estimates in the care of patients, and patients have indicated the desire for a wide variety of predictive information. Adopting the broadness of the Hippocratic definition may allow clinicians to overcome their hesitancy and provide much-needed information to their patients.

How Do Blood Cancer Doctors Discuss Prognosis? Findings from a National Survey of Hematologic Oncologists

Background: Although blood cancers are accompanied by a high level of prognostic uncertainty, little is known about when and how hematologic oncologists discuss prognosis. Objectives: Characterize reported practices and predictors of prognostic discussions for a cohort of hematologic oncologists. Design: Cross-sectional mailed survey in 2015. Setting/Subjects: U.S.-based hematologic oncologists providing clinical care for adult patients with blood cancers. Measurements: We conducted univariable and multivariable analyses assessing the association of clinician characteristics with reported frequency of initiation of prognostic discussions, type of terminology used, and whether prognosis is readdressed. Results: We received 349 surveys (response rate = 57.3%). The majority of respondents (60.3%) reported conducting prognostic discussions with "most" (>95%) of their patients. More than half (56.8%) preferred general/qualitative rather than specific/numeric terms when discussing prognosis. Although 91.3% reported that they typically first initiate prognostic discussions at diagnosis, 17.7% reported routinely never readdressing prognosis or waiting until death is imminent to revisit the topic. Hematologic oncologists with ≤15 years since medical school graduation (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; confidence interval (95% CI) 0.30-0.88) and those who considered prognostic uncertainty a barrier to quality end-of-life care (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35-0.90) had significantly lower odds of discussing prognosis with "most" patients. Conclusions: Although the majority of hematologic oncologists reported discussing prognosis with their patients, most prefer general/qualitative terms. Moreover, even though prognosis evolves during the disease course, nearly one in five reported never readdressing prognosis or only doing so near death. These findings suggest the need for structured interventions to improve prognostic communication for patients with blood cancers.

Cancer Communication Outside of the Physician-Patient Relationship: The Experience of Communicating and Understanding the Meaning of Prognosis

RESEARCH QUESTION

How does the process of engagement and integration of sources of information outside patient-physician interaction affect how individuals with cancer interpret their treatment experience and prognosis?

BACKGROUND

Studies of patient-physician communication of prognosis in oncology highlight areas where misunderstanding occurs: understanding consequences of treatment, likelihood of treatment success, probability of cure, status/progression of illness, and prognosis. Theories proposing mechanisms that underlie this discrepancy cannot account for all instances of misunderstanding, including when complete and direct physician disclosure occurs. Prior research focused on patient-physician communication event(s) and immediate antecedents and consequences. However, less is known about what happens to information once it has been communicated and how a patient's process to interpret the meaning of their experience affects their understanding of it. Our study explores this question by examining patient communication with sources of information other than treating physicians.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted 10 semi-structured qualitative interviews with individuals diagnosed with 4 types of cancer at different stages. The interviews were analyzed using inductive qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Participants in our sample consulted a variety of additional sources to give context and understanding to their communicated prognosis. These were important contributors to how they understood their prognosis and incorporated that understanding. They included family, friends/acquaintances, cancer survivors, support/survivor groups, secondary health-care staff, and relevant informational materials. Different motivations for seeking out these sources were also expressed. Participants expressed a link between their understanding of their prognosis and the variety of outside sources they enlisted for input and support.

A Qualitative Study of Serious Illness Conversations in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Background: Conversations with seriously ill patients about their values and goals have been associated with reduced distress, a better quality of life, and goal-concordant care near the end of life. Yet, little is known about how such conversations are conducted. Objective: To characterize the content of serious illness conversations and identify opportunities for improvement. Design: Qualitative analysis of audio-recorded, serious illness conversations using an evidence-based guide and obtained through a cluster randomized controlled trial in an outpatient oncology setting. Setting/Measurements: Clinicians assigned to the intervention arm received training to use the "Serious Illness Conversation Guide" to have a serious illness conversation about values and goals with advanced cancer patients. Conversations were de-identified, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two researchers. Key themes were analyzed. Results: A total of 25 conversations conducted by 16 clinicians were evaluated. The median conversation duration was 14 minutes (range 4-37), with clinicians speaking half of the time. Thematic analyses demonstrated five key themes: (1) supportive dialogue between patients and clinicians; (2) patients' openness to discuss emotionally challenging topics; (3) patients' willingness to articulate preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments; (4) clinicians' difficulty in responding to emotional or ambiguous patient statements; and (5) challenges in discussing prognosis. Conclusions: Data from this exploratory study suggest that seriously ill patients are open to discussing values and goals with their clinician. Yet, clinicians may struggle when disclosing a time-based prognosis and in responding to patients' emotions. Such skills should be a focus for additional training for clinicians caring for seriously ill patients.

Prognostic awareness, prognostic communication, and cognitive function in patients with malignant glioma

Background

Malignant glioma (MG) is a devastating neuro-oncologic disease with almost invariably poor prognosis. Prognostic awareness (PA) is the awareness of incurable disease and shortened life expectancy (LE). Accurate PA is associated with favorable psychological outcomes at the end of life (EoL) for patients with cancer; however, little is known about PA or prognostic communication in MG. Moreover, research has yet to evaluate the impact of cognitive impairment on PA and preferred forms of communication.

Methods

Fifty MG patients and 32 paired caregivers were evaluated in this exploratory study with a semi-structured PA assessment aimed to measure their awareness of MG incurability and LE. Full PA was defined as awareness of MG incurability and accurate estimate of LE. The assessment included a survey about preferences for prognostic communication (items from the Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire), neurocognitive assessment (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, Trail Making Test Parts A and B, and the Controlled Oral Word Association Test), and measurements of mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain [FACT-Br]).

Results

Twenty (40%) patients and 22 (69%) caregivers had full PA. Thirty (60%) patients and 23 (72%) caregivers reported that prognostic information was extremely or very important, and 21 (42%) patients and 16 (50%) caregivers desired more prognostic information. Patients with memory impairment more frequently believed that prognostic information was important (P = 0.04, P = 0.03) and desired more information (P = 0.05, P = 0.003) as compared with those without impairment.

Conclusions

Most MG patients were unaware of their LE. Memory impairment may influence preferences for prognostic information.