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

Emergency department early mortality model for patients admitted after presenting to a tertiary medical center emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Identifying patients in the emergency department (ED) at higher risk for in-hospital mortality can inform shared decision making and goals-of-care discussions. Electronic health record systems allow for integrated multivariable logistic regression (LR) modeling, which can provide early predictions of mortality risk in time for crucial decision making during a patient's initial care. Many commonly used LR models require blood gas analysis values, which are not frequently obtained in the ED. The goal of this study was to develop an all-cause mortality prediction model, derived from commonly collected ED data, which can assess mortality risk early in ED care.

METHODS

Data were obtained for all patients, age 18 and older, admitted from the ED to Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist from April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2020. Initial vital signs including heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, pulse oximetry, weight, body mass index, comprehensive metabolic panel, and a complete blood count were electronically retrieved for all patients. The prediction model was developed using LR. The ED early mortality (EDEM) model was compared with the rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) for performance analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 45,004 patients met inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 77,117 admissions. In this cohort, 52.8% of patients were male and 47.2% were female. The model used 35 variables and yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.889 (95% CI 0.874-0.905) with a sensitivity of 0.828 (95% CI 0.791-0.860), a specificity of 0.788 (95% CI 0.783-0.794), a negative predictive value of 0.995 (95% CI 0.994-0.996), and a positive predictive value of 0.084 (95% CI 0.076-0.092). This outperformed REMS in this data set, which yielded an AUC of 0.500 (95% CI 0.455-0.545).

CONCLUSIONS

The EDEM model was predictive of in-hospital mortality and was superior to REMS.

Prognostic Understanding, Goals of Care, and Quality of Life in Hospitalized Patients with Leukemia or Multiple Myeloma

Background: Prior studies reveal a lack of illness understanding and prognostic awareness among patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated prognostic awareness and illness understanding among patients with acute leukemia and multiple myeloma (MM) and measured patient-hematologist discordance. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with acute leukemia and MM at Mount Sinai Hospital or Yale New Haven Hospital between August 2015 and February 2020. Patients were administered a survey assessing prognostic awareness, goals of care (GOC), and quality of life. Hematologists completed a similar survey for each patient. We assessed discordance across the cohort of patients and hematologists using the likelihood-ratio chi-square test and within patient-hematologist pairs using the kappa (κ) statistic. Results: We enrolled 185 patients (137 with leukemia and 48 with MM) and 29 hematologists. Among patients, 137 (74%) self-identified as White, 27 (15%) as Black, and 21 (11%) as Hispanic. Across the entire cohort, patients were significantly more optimistic about treatment goals compared with hematologists (p = 0.027). Within patient-hematologist pairs, hematologists were significantly more optimistic than patients with respect to line of treatment (κ = 0.03). For both leukemia and MM cohorts, patients were significantly more likely to respond "don't know" or deferring to a faith-based response with 88 (64%) and 34 (71%), respectively, compared with only 28 (20%) and 11 (23%) of hematologists, respectively. Conclusions: We observed significant discordance regarding prognosis and GOC among patients with hematological malignancies and their hematologists. These data support future interventions to improve prognostic understanding among this patient population to facilitate informed treatment choices.

Palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies in Germany: a nationwide survey on everyday practice and influencing factors from the perspective of treating physicians

Integrating palliative care into the treatment of patients with advanced hematological malignancies (HM) remains challenging. To explore treating physicians' perspectives on current palliative care practice and to evaluate factors influencing integration, we conducted a nationwide online survey. Based on literature and expert review, the survey addressed the importance of palliative care, communication about life-threatening conditions, challenges in establishing goals of care, and factors influencing the integration of palliative care. 207 physicians treating patients with HM in Germany participated. We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data and a content structuring approach. Most physicians considered palliative care in HM to be very important (60.6%) and discussed life-threatening conditions with more than half of their patients (52%), especially when goals of care were changed (87.0%) or when patients raised the topic (84.0%). Disease-related factors, different professional perspectives on prognosis, and patient hopes were the main barriers to changing goals of care, but collaboration with colleagues and multidisciplinary teams provided important support. Time constraints were identified as the main barrier to integrating palliative care. The majority worked well with palliative care teams. Referral processes and conditions were perceived as minor barriers. The study highlights the need to address barriers to integrating palliative care into the management of patients with advanced HM. Future research should aim at optimizing palliative care for patients with HM.

Cultivating Relationship-Centered Care: Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Communication Preferences for and Experiences with Prognostic Conversations

Prognostic conversations present many challenges for patients, caregivers, and providers alike. Most research examining the context of prognostic conversations have used a more siloed approach to gather the range of perspectives of those involved, typically through the lens of patient-centered care. However, the mutual influence evident in prognostic conversations suggests a relationship-centered care model may be useful in cancer communication research. Similarities and differences in preferences for and experiences with prognostic conversations among oncology patients, caregivers, and providers (N = 32) were explored. Identified themes were then mapped to the principles of the relationship-centered care framework to extend our understanding of prognostic conversations and contribute to a new direction in the application of relationship-centered care. Findings suggest fewer similarities than differences, point to important discrepancies among participant perspectives, and reinforce the utility of relationship-centered care in identifying communication practices that enhance the prognostic conversation experience.

Stability of End-of-Life Care Wishes and Gender-Specific Characteristics of Outpatients with Advanced Cancer under Palliative Therapy: A Prospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Early integration of palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) play an increasingly important role in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer. Advance directives (ADs) and patients' preferences regarding end-of-life (EoL) care are important aspects of ACP. In the outpatient setting, the prevalence of those documents and EoL care wishes is not well investigated, and changes in the longitudinal course are poorly understood.

METHODS

From June 2020 to August 2022, 67 outpatients with advanced solid tumors undergoing palliative cancer therapy were interviewed on the topic of ACP in a longitudinal course. From this database, the prevalence of ADs, healthcare proxy, EoL care wishes, and the need for counseling regarding these issues were collected. In addition, EoL care wishes were examined for their stability.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (76.1%) reported having ADs, and 41 patients (61.2%) reported having a healthcare proxy. Nineteen patients (37.3%) with ADs and 11 patients (68.7%) without ADs indicated a wish for counseling. Reported EoL care wishes remained stable over a period of approximately 6 months. Nevertheless, intraindividual changes occurred over time within the different EoL care preferences. The desire for resuscitation and dialysis were significantly higher in men than in women (resuscitation: 15 of 21 men [71.4%] versus 9 of 22 women [40.9%], odds ratio [OR] 3.611, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-12.89, p = 0.048; dialysis: 16 of the 23 men [69.6%] versus 9 of the 25 women [36.0%], OR: 4.063, 95% CI: 1.22-13.58, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

Our results show a reasonably high percentage of ADs and healthcare proxies in our study cohort. The observed stability of EoL requests encourages the implementation of structured queries for ADs and healthcare proxy for outpatients undergoing palliative treatment. Our data suggest that gender-specific characteristics should be further investigated in this context.

Prognosis Discussion and Referral to Community Palliative Care Services in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a Tertiary Cancer Centre

Advanced pancreatic cancer is associated with a poor prognosis, often less than 1 year. Honest prognosis discussions guide early community palliative care services input, facilitating timely advance care planning and improving quality of life. The aims were to assess if patients were offered prognosis discussions and community palliative care services referral. A retrospective analysis of consecutive case-notes of new advanced pancreatic cancer patients was conducted. Chi-squared test assessed the association with prognosis discussion and community palliative care services referral. In total, 365 cases (60%) had a documented prognosis discussion at any time-point in the treatment pathway; 54.4% during the first appointment. The frequency of prognosis discussion was greater with nurse clinician review at first appointment (p < 0.001). In total, 171 patients (28.1%) were known to community palliative care services at the first appointment. Of those not known, 171 (39.1%) and 143 (32.7%) were referred at this initial time-point or later, respectively. There was a significant association between the referral to community palliative care services at first appointment and the reviewing professional (this was greatest for nurse clinicians (frequency 65.2%)) (p < 0.001), and also if reviewed by clinical nurse specialist at first visit or not (47.8% vs. 35.6%) (p < 0.01). Prognosis discussions were documented in approximately two-thirds of cases, highlighting missed opportunities. Prognosis discussion was associated with clinician review and was most frequent for nurse clinician, as was referral to community palliative care services. Clinical nurse specialist review increased referral to community palliative care services if seen at the initial visit. Multi-disciplinary review, specifically nursing, therefore, during the first consultation is imperative and additive. It should be considered best practice to offer and negotiate the content and timing of prognosis discussions with cancer patients, and revisit this offer throughout their treatment pathway. Greater attention to prognosis discussion documentation is recommended.

Family caregiver roles and challenges in assisting patients with cancer treatment decision-making: Analysis of data from a national survey

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe the roles and challenges of family caregivers involved in patients' cancer treatment decision-making.

METHODS

Family caregiver-reported data were analyzed from a national survey conducted in the United States by CancerCare® (2/2021-7/2021). Four select-all-that-apply caregiver roles were explored: (1) observer (patient as primary decision-maker); (2) primary decision-maker; (3) shared decision-maker with patient and (4) decision delegated to healthcare team. Roles were compared across five treatment decisions: where to get treatment, the treatment plan, second opinions, beginning treatment and stopping treatment. Ten challenges faced by caregivers (e.g., information, cost, treatment understanding) were then examined. χ2 and regression analyses were used to assess associations between roles, decision areas, challenges and caregiver sociodemographics.

RESULTS

Of 2703 caregiver respondents, 87.6% reported involvement in patient decisions about cancer treatment, including 1661 who responded to a subsection further detailing their roles and challenges with specific treatment decisions. Amongst these 1661 caregivers, 22.2% reported an observing role, 21.3% a primary decision-making role, 53.9% a shared decision-making role and 18.1% a role delegating decisions to the healthcare team. Most caregivers (60.4%) faced ≥1 challenge, the most frequent being not knowing how treatments would affect the patient's physical condition (24.8%) and quality of life (23.2%). In multivariable models, being Hispanic/Latino/a was the strongest predictor of facing at least one challenge (b = -0.581, Wald = 10.69, p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Most caregivers were involved in patients' cancer treatment decisions. The major challenge was not understanding how treatments would impact patients' physical health and quality of life. Challenges may be more commonly faced by Hispanic/Latino/a caregivers.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The CancerCare® survey was developed in partnership with caregiving services and research experts to describe the role of cancer family caregivers in patient decision-making and assess their needs for support. All survey items were reviewed by a CancerCare advisory board that included five professional patient advocates and piloted by a CancerCare social worker and other staff who provide counselling to cancer caregivers.

Effective communication in palliative care from the perspectives of patients and relatives: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

In palliative care, effective communication is essential to adequately meet the needs and preferences of patients and their relatives. Effective communication includes exchanging information, facilitates shared decision-making, and promotes an empathic care relationship. We explored the perspectives of patients with an advanced illness and their relatives on effective communication with health-care professionals.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane for original empirical studies published between January 1, 2015 and March 4, 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 56 articles on 53 unique studies were included. We found 7 themes that from the perspectives of patients and relatives contribute to effective communication: (1) open and honest information. However, this open and honest communication can also trigger anxiety, stress, and existential disruption. Patients and relatives also indicated that they preferred (2) health-care professionals aligning to the patient's and relative's process of uptake and coping with information; (3) empathy; (4) clear and understandable language; (5) leaving room for positive coping strategies, (6) committed health-care professionals taking responsibility; and (7) recognition of relatives in their role as caregiver. Most studies in this review concerned communication with physicians in a hospital setting.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Most patients and relatives appreciate health-care professionals to not only pay attention to strictly medical issues but also to who they are as a person and the process they are going through. More research is needed on effective communication by nurses, in nonhospital settings and on communication by health-care professionals specialized in palliative care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

DESIGN

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

DATA SOURCES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluating Physician Emotion Regulation in Serious Illness Conversations Using Multimodal Assessment

CONTEXT

Emotion regulation by the physician can influence the effectiveness of serious illness conversations. The feasibility of multimodal assessment of emotion regulation during these conversations is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and assess an experimental framework for evaluating physician emotion regulation during serious illness conversations.

METHODS

We developed and then assessed a multimodal assessment framework for physician emotion regulation using a cross-sectional, pilot study on physicians trained in the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) in a simulated, telehealth encounter. Development of the assessment framework included a literature review and subject matter expert consultations. Our predefined feasibility endpoints included: an enrollment rate of ≥60% of approached physicians, >90% completion rate of survey items, and <20% missing data from wearable heart rate sensors. To describe physician emotion regulation, we performed a thematic analysis of the conversation, its documentation, and physician interviews.

RESULTS

Out of 12 physicians approached, 11 (92%) SICG-trained physicians enrolled in the study: five medical oncology and six palliative care physicians. All 11 completed the survey (100% completion rate). Two sensors (chest band, wrist sensor) had <20% missing data during study tasks. The forearm sensor had >20% missing data. The thematic analysis found that physicians': 1) overarching goal was to move beyond prognosis to reasonable hope; 2) tactically focused on establishing a trusting, supportive relationship; and 3) possessed incomplete awareness of their emotion regulation strategies.

CONCLUSION

Our novel, multimodal assessment of physician emotion regulation was feasible in a simulated SICG encounter. Physicians exhibited an incomplete understanding of their emotion regulation strategies.

Mismatch between Pediatric Oncologists' Private and Parent-Facing Prognostic Communication: Communication Patterns Used to Soften Prognostic Disclosure

Purpose: Most parents of children with cancer desire honest prognostic communication, yet oncologists often avoid clear prognostic disclosure. This study explored differences between oncologists' private assessments of prognosis and their prognostic communication with patients and parents. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, we audio-recorded serial disease reevaluation conversations between children with advancing cancer, parents, and primary oncologists and separately surveyed and interviewed oncologists at disease progression time points. At time points when oncologists privately described curability as ≤10%, content analysis was used to compare prognostic language in recorded dialogue with private responses about prognosis. Results: Of 33 enrolled patient-parent dyads, 17 patients with high-risk cancer under the care of 6 primary oncologists experienced disease progression during the study period. In 95% of oncologist interviews at disease progression time points, oncologists either predicted curability to be ≤10% or incurable. In most interviews (82%), oncologists stated unequivocally that chances of cure were ≤10%, yet did not communicate these low odds during recorded discussions at the same time point. Analysis revealed three distinct communication patterns through which oncologists softened prognostic disclosure to patients and families: (1) space-holding for hope of cure: statements acknowledging difficult prognosis yet leaving room for possibility of cure; (2) vague warning: statements implying that cancer may progress without offering specifics; and (3) data without interpretation: statements describing disease progression findings in detail without explaining what this meant for the patient's future life or survival. Conclusion: Pediatric oncologists often temper their assessment of poor prognosis when speaking with patients and families. Future work should explore serious conversation guides and other clinical interventions aimed at encouraging person-centered prognostic disclosure for patients with advancing cancer and their families.

The TRIBE model: How socioemotional processes fuel end-of-life treatment in the United States

Prior interventions have repeatedly failed to decrease the prescription and receipt of treatments and procedures that confer more harm than benefit at the End-of-Life (EoL); new approaches to intervention are needed. Ideally, future interventions would be informed by a social-ecological conceptual model that explains EoL healthcare utilization patterns, but current models ignore two facts: (1) healthcare is an inherently social activity, involving clinical teams and patients' social networks, and (2) emotions influence social activity. To address these omissions, we scaffolded Terror Management Theory and Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to create the Transtheoretical Model of Irrational Biomedical Exuberance (TRIBE). Based on Terror Management Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of patient death motivates healthcare teams to conform to a biomedical norm of care, even when clinicians believe that biomedical interventions will likely be unhelpful. Based on Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of dwindling time motivates families to prioritize emotional goals, and leads patients to consent to disease-directed treatments they know will likely be unhelpful, as moral emotions motivate deference to the perceived emotional needs of their loved ones. TRIBE is unique among models of healthcare utilization in its acknowledgement that moral emotions and processes (e.g., shame, compassion, regret-avoidance) influence healthcare delivery, patients' interactions with family members, and patients' outcomes. TRIBE is especially relevant to potentially harmful EoL care in the United States, and it also offers insights into the epidemics of overtreatment in healthcare settings worldwide. By outlining the role of socioemotional processes in the care of persons with serious conditions, TRIBE underscores the critical need for psychological innovation in interventions, health policy and research on healthcare utilization.

Communicating bad news to patients and families in African oncology settings

AIMS

To assess clinicians' self-reported knowledge of current policies in African oncology settings, of their personal communication practices around sharing bad news with patients, and to identify barriers to the sharing of serious news in these settings.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of cancer care providers in African oncology settings (N = 125) was conducted. Factor analysis was used to assess cross-cultural adaptation and uptake of an evidence-based protocol for disclosing bad news to patients with cancer and of providers' perceived barriers to disclosing bad news to patients with cancer. Analysis of Various (ANOVA) was used to assess strength of association with each dimension of these two measurement models by various categorical variables.

RESULTS

Providers from Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, and Rwanda represented 85% of survey respondents. Two independent, psychometrically reliable, multi-dimensional measurement models were derived to assess providers' personal communication practices and providers' perceived barriers to disclosing a cancer diagnosis. Forty percent (40%) of respondent nurses but only 20% of respondent physicians had had formal communications skills training. Approximately 20%-25% of respondent physicians and nurses reported having a consistent plan or strategy for communicating bad news to their cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that effective communication about cancer diagnosis and prognosis requires an appreciation and clinical skill set that blends an understanding of cancer-related internalized stigmas harbored by patient and family, dilemmas posed by treatment affordability, and the need to navigate family wishes about cancer-related diagnoses in the context of African oncology settings. Findings underscore the need for culturally grounded communications research and program design.

Navigating prognostic communication when children with poor-prognosis cancer experience prolonged disease stability

BACKGROUND

Most pediatric patients and families want clear prognostic information across the illness course. Yet when children with poor-prognosis cancer experience prolonged disease stability, uncertainty can make communication particularly challenging. In this study, we aimed to (i) assess how frequently oncologists communicate about prognosis when high-risk cancer does not progress, and (ii) describe prognostic communication patterns in the context of disease stability.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, we audio-recorded serial disease re-evaluation conversations between children with poor-prognosis cancer, their families, and their primary oncologists. For this secondary analysis, we conducted content analysis across serial conversations among 16 patient-parent-oncologist triads for whom the patient's disease remained stable over the 24-month study period.

RESULTS

Prognostic communication was absent in >50% of recorded conversations. Overall, it comprised only 4% of dialog time, nearly 90% of which was dialog about prognostic uncertainty; discussion of curability occurred infrequently. Three distinct patterns for prognostic communication emerged: (a) "Don't know" statements, avoiding or deferring prognostication; (b) "Worry" statements, preparing families for possible future disease progression; and (c) relief-caveat statements, celebrating disease stability while balancing positivity with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists seldom talked about prognosis with high-risk patients during periods of disease stability; yet when they did, they used thoughtful and effective strategies to prepare families for possible future disease progression. Further research is needed to better understand if, how, and when patients and families with stable disease who are high risk for future disease progression prefer to receive information about prognosis.

Parent-Provider Communication in Hospitalized Children with Advanced Heart Disease

Communication between parents and providers of children with cardiac disease is essential to parental decision-making. This study explored how parents of hospitalized children with advanced heart disease perceived communication with their child's providers. We performed a prospective survey study of parents and physicians of children with advanced heart disease age 30 days to 19 years admitted to the hospital for > 7 days over a 1-year period at a single institution (n = 160 parent-provider pairs). Descriptive statistics were primarily used and Fisher exact tests and kappa statistics were used to assess agreement. All parents rated communication with their child's care team as excellent, very good, or good, but 56% of parents reported having received conflicting information. Parental perception of "too many" people giving them information was associated with overall poorer communication and less preparedness for decision-making. One-third (32%) of parents felt unprepared for decision-making, despite 88% feeling supported. Parents and physicians showed poor agreement with respect to overall adequacy of communication, receipt of conflicting information, and evaluation of the most effective way for parents to receive information. Interventions involving physician communication training and proactive assessment of parent communication preferences may be beneficial.

Examining how physician factors influence patient satisfaction during clinical consultations about cancer prognosis and pain

Objective

Patient-physician communication affects cancer patients' satisfaction, health outcomes, and reimbursement for physician services. Our objective is to use machine learning to comprehensively examine the association between patient satisfaction and physician factors in clinical consultations about cancer prognosis and pain.

Methods

We used data from audio-recorded, transcribed communications between physicians and standardized patients (SPs). We analyzed the data using logistic regression (LR) and random forests (RF).

Results

The LR models suggested that lower patient satisfaction was associated with more in-depth prognosis discussion; and higher patient satisfaction was associated with a greater extent of shared decision making, patient being black, and doctor being young. Conversely, the RF models suggested the opposite association with the same set of variables.

Conclusion

Somewhat contradicting results from distinct machine learning models suggested possible confounding factors (hidden variables) in prognosis discussion, shared decision-making, and doctor age, on the modeling of patient satisfaction. Practitioners should not make inferences with one single data-modeling method and enlarge the study cohort to help deal with population heterogeneity.

Innovation

Comparing diverse machine learning models (both parametric and non-parametric types) and carefully applying variable selection methods prior to regression modeling, can enrich the examination of physician factors in characterizing patient-physician communication outcomes.

Oncologist approaches to communicating uncertain disease status in pediatric cancer: a qualitative study

Background

Most patients with cancer and their caregivers desire honest, clear prognostic communication, yet oncologists often disclose prognosis inconsistently. Prognostic communication becomes even more challenging when disease progression is unclear or equivocal. Presently, oncologist approaches for discussing uncertain disease findings are poorly understood.

Methods

In this prospective, longitudinal study, we audio-recorded serial disease reevaluation conversations between children with high-risk cancer, their families, and their primary oncologists over 24 months and conducted content analysis at recorded timepoints when oncologists categorized disease progression as equivocal.

Results

Of the 265 medical discussions recorded across the illness course for 33 patient-parent dyads, a total of 40 recorded discussions took place at equivocal timepoints, comprising > 500 min of medical dialogue. Prognosis talk encompassed < 3% of dialogue and was absent in nearly half of equivocal discussions (17/40, 42.5%). Curability statements were identified in only two conversations. Inductive content analysis of dialogue revealed four distinct patterns for communicating equivocal disease status: (1) up-front reassurance, (2) softening the message, (3) describing possible disease progression without interpretation, (4) expressing uncertainty without discussing the bigger picture.

Conclusion

Oncologists rarely discuss prognosis with children with high-risk cancer and their families at timepoints when disease progression is not definitive. Formal guidance is needed to better support oncologists in navigating uncertainty while sharing honest, person- and family-centered information about prognosis.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10190-6.

Using three scenarios to explain life expectancy in advanced cancer: attitudes of patients, family members, and other healthcare professionals

AIM

To evaluate a web-based tool for estimating and explaining three scenarios for expected survival time to people with advanced cancer (patients), their family members (FMs), and other healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS

Thirty-three oncologists estimated the "median survival of a group of similar patients" for patients seeking quantitative prognostic information. The web-based tool generated worst-case, most likely, and best-case scenarios for survival based on the oncologist's estimate. Oncologists presented the scenarios to each patient and provided a printed summary to patients, FMs, and HCPs. Attitudes to the information were assessed by questionnaires. Observed survival for each patient was compared with the oncologist's estimated survival and the three scenarios.

RESULTS

Prognosis was discussed with 222 patients: median age 67 years; 61% male; most common primary sites pancreas 15%, non-small-cell lung 15%, and colorectal 12%. The median (range) for observed survival times was 9 months (0.5-43) and for oncologist's estimated survival times was 12 months (2-96). Ninety-one percent of patients, 91% of FMs, and 84% of HCPs agreed that it was helpful having life expectancy explained as three scenarios. The majority (77%) of patients judged the information presented about their life expectancy to be the same or better than they had expected before the consultation. The survival estimates met a priori criteria for calibration, precision, and accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients, FMs, and HCPs found it helpful to receive personalized prognostic information formatted as three scenarios for survival. It was feasible, acceptable, and safe to use a web-based resource to do this.

Establishing Goals of Care

Establishing goals of care (GOC) is a crucial component of a patient's treatment plan. The need for better physician-patient communication in this area has been recognized for decades, yet several gaps remain. Challenges exist for both physician and patient. Physicians should pursue a patient-led approach, exercise cultural competency, and use various communication techniques to guide patients when establishing GOC.

Coping with glioblastoma: prognostic communication and prognostic understanding among patients with recurrent glioblastoma, caregivers, and oncologists

PURPOSE

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating neuro-oncologic disease with invariably poor prognosis. Despite this, research shows patients have unrealistic perceptions of their prognosis, which may relate in part to communication patterns between patients, caregivers and oncologists. The purpose of this study was to examine communication processes and goals among patients, caregivers, and oncologists to elucidate drivers of prognostic understanding (PU) in the context of recurrent GBM.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multi-center study enrolling adult patients with GBM, caregivers, and oncologists, who independently reported the content of a specific discussion involving the disclosure of GBM recurrence. Communication processes and goals were characterized for each participant, and concordance between all dyads and patient-caregiver-oncologist triads were calculated.

RESULTS

Seventeen patient, caregiver, and oncologist triads were analyzed. At the individual level, three (17.6%) patients and 8 (47.1%) caregivers reported having discussed prognosis during the clinical encounter, as compared to ten oncologists (58.8%). Seven patients (41.2%) and 5 caregivers (29.4%), versus thirteen oncologists (76.5%) reported ever discussing prognosis or life expectancy at previous appointments. Generally, patient-caregiver concordance (i.e., both answered the same) regarding communication goals and processes was low. Triads showed limited concordant responses in discussing curability (n = 5), prognosis (n = 4), end-of-life treatment goals (n = 4), and ever discussing prognosis (n = 3).

CONCLUSION

Patients, caregivers and oncologists had discordant views regarding communication processes and prognostic goals, even when recalling a single discussion. This study highlights the importance of clear and frequent communication about prognosis, and the need for further research on communication and PU in the neuro-oncology setting.

Association Among End-Of-Life Discussions, Cancer Patients' Quality of Life at End of Life, and Bereaved Families' Mental Health

End-of-life discussions are essential for patients with advanced cancer, but there is little evidence about whether these discussions affect general ward patients and family outcomes. We investigated the status of end-of-life discussions and associated factors and their effects on patients' quality of death and their families' mental health. Participants in this retrospective cross-sectional observational study were 119 bereaved family members. Data were collected through a survey that included questions on the timing of end-of-life discussions, quality of palliative care, quality of patient death, and depression and grief felt by the families. Approximately 64% of the bereaved family members participated in end-of-life discussions between the patient and the attending physician, and 55% of these discussions took place within a month before death. End-of-life discussions were associated with the patients' prognostic perception as "incurable, though there is hope for a cure" and "patients' experience with end-of-life discussions with family before cancer." There was a small decrease in depression and grief for families of patients who had end-of-life discussions. Those who did not have end-of-life discussions reported lower quality of end-of-life care.

Implementation and Impact of a Serious Illness Communication Training for Hematology-Oncology Fellows

Effective communication between providers and patients with serious illness is critical to ensure that treatment is aligned with patient goals. We developed and tested an implementation strategy for incorporating the previously developed Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), a clinician script, into hematology-oncology fellowship training at a single US academic medical center. Between December 2017 and April 2018, we trained 8 oncology fellows to use and document the SICG. The training included associated communication skills-such as handling emotion and headlining-over 7 didactic sessions. Implementation strategies included training 4 oncology faculty as coaches to re-enforce fellows' skills and an electronic medical record template to document the SICG. We assessed effectiveness using 4 approaches: (1) SICG template use among fellows in the 12 months following training, (2) fellow confidence pre- and post-intervention via survey, (3) performance in 2 simulated patient encounters, and (4) semi-structured interviews after 12 months. Fellows successfully implemented the SICG in simulated patient encounters, though only 2 of 6 fellows documented any SICG in the clinical practice. Most fellows reported greater confidence in their communication after training. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed the following: (1) positive training experience, (2) improved patient preference elicitation, (3) selected SICG components used in a single encounter, (4) prioritize other clinical duties, (5) importance of emotion handling skills, (6) no faculty coaching receive outside training. Despite acquisition of communication skills, promoting new clinical behaviors remains challenging. More work is needed to identify which implementation strategies are required in this learner population.

Mind your words: Oncologists' communication that potentially harms patients with advanced cancer: A survey on patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Many complaints in medicine and in advanced illnesses are about communication. Little is known about which specific communications harm. This study explored the perspectives of patients with advanced cancer about potentially harmful communication behaviors by oncologists and helpful alternatives.

METHODS

An online survey design was used that was based on literature scoping and patient/clinician/researcher input. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 74) reflected on the potential harmfulness of 19 communication situations. They were asked whether they perceived the situation as one in which communication could be harmful (yes/no). If they answered "yes," they were asked whether they perceived the examples as harmful (yes/no) or helpful (yes/no) and to provide open comments. Results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively (content analysis).

RESULTS

Communication regarding information provision, prognosis discussion, decision-making, and empathy could be unnecessarily potentially harmful, and this occurred in various ways, such as making vague promises instead of concrete ones (92%), being too directive in decision-making (qualitative), and not listening to the patient (88%). Not all patients considered other situations potentially harmful (eg, introducing the option of refraining from anticancer therapy [49%] and giving too much [prognostic] information [60%]). Exploring each individual patients' needs/preferences seemed to be a precondition for helpful communication.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides patient perspectives on oncologists' unnecessarily potentially harmful communication behaviors and offers practical tools to improve communication in advanced cancer care. Both preventable pitfalls and delicate challenges requiring an individualized approach, where exploration might help, are described. Although providing difficult and unwelcome news is a core task for clinicians, this study might help them to do so while preventing potentially unnecessary harm.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

Family Members' Understanding of the End-of-Life Wishes of People Undergoing Maintenance Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

People receiving maintenance dialysis must often rely on family members and other close persons to make critical treatment decisions toward the end of life. Contemporary data on family members' understanding of the end-of-life wishes of members of this population are lacking.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Among 172 family members of people undergoing maintenance dialysis, we ascertained their level of involvement in the patient's care and prior discussions about care preferences. We also compared patient and family member responses to questions about end-of-life care using percentage agreement and the κ-statistic.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of the 172 enrolled family members was 55 (±17) years, 136 (79%) were women, and 43 (25%) were Black individuals. Sixty-seven (39%) family members were spouses or partners of enrolled patients. A total of 137 (80%) family members had spoken with the patient about whom they would want to make medical decisions, 108 (63%) had spoken with the patient about their treatment preferences, 47 (27%) had spoken with the patient about stopping dialysis, and 56 (33%) had spoken with the patient about hospice. Agreement between patient and family member responses was highest for the question about whether the patient would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (percentage agreement 83%, κ=0.31), and was substantially lower for questions about a range of other aspects of end-of-life care, including preference for mechanical ventilation (62%, 0.21), values around life prolongation versus comfort (45%, 0.13), preferred place of death (58%, 0.07), preferred decisional role (54%, 0.15), and prognostic expectations (38%, 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Most surveyed family members reported they had spoken with the patient about their end-of-life preferences but not about stopping dialysis or hospice. Although family members had a fair understanding of patients' cardiopulmonary resuscitation preferences, most lacked a detailed understanding of their perspectives on other aspects of end-of-life care.

Prognostic Communication Between Oncologists and Parents of Children With Advanced Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Parents of children with cancer perceive deficits in quality of prognostic communication. How oncologists disclose information about disease progression and incurability and how prognostic communication impacts parental understanding of prognosis are poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to (1) characterize communication strategies used by pediatric oncologists to share prognostic information across a child's advancing illness course and (2) explore relationships between different communication approaches and concordance of oncologist-parent prognostic understanding.

METHODS

In this prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, serial disease reevaluation conversations were audio recorded across an advancing illness course for children with cancer and their families. Surveys and interviews also were conducted with oncologists and caregivers at specific time points targeting disease progression.

RESULTS

Seventeen children experienced advancing illness on study, resulting in 141 recordings (40 hours). Fewer than 4% of recorded dialogue constituted prognostic communication, with most codes (77%) occurring during discussions about frank disease progression. Most recordings at study entry contained little or no prognosis communication dialogue, and oncologists rated curability lower than parents across all dyads. Parent-oncologist discordance typically was preceded by conversations without incurability statements; ultimately, concordance was achieved in most cases after the oncologist made direct statements about incurability. Content analysis revealed 3 distinct patterns (absent, deferred, and seed planting) describing the provision of prognostic communication across an advancing pediatric cancer course.

CONCLUSIONS

When oncologists provided direct statements about incurability, prognostic understanding appeared to improve. Further research is needed to determine optimal timing for prognostic disclosure in alignment with patient and family preferences.

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

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

Communicating prognostic information: 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.

Exploratory Study of Advance Care Discussions Among Chinese American and White Stage IV Cancer Patients at an American Tertiary Medical Center

PURPOSE

Timely advance care discussions are essential components of quality care for diverse populations; however, little is known about these conversations among Chinese American cancer patients. This exploratory study describes differences in advance care discussions and planning between Chinese American and White advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

We collected data for 63 Chinese American and 63 White stage IV cancer patients who died between 2013 and 2018. We compared: frequency and timing of prognosis, goals of care (GOC), and end-of-life care (EOLC) discussions in the final year of life; family inclusion in discussions; healthcare proxy (HCP) identification; do not resuscitate (DNR) order, do not intubate (DNI) order, and other advance directive (AD) completion. We did not conduct statistical tests due to the study's exploratory nature.

RESULTS

Among Chinese American and White patients, respectively, 76% and 71% had prognosis, 51% and 56% had GOC, and 89% and 84% had EOLC discussions. Prognosis, GOC, and EOLC discussions were held a median of 34.0, 15.5, and 34.0 days before death among Chinese American and 17.0, 13.0, and 24.0 days before death among White patients. Documentation rates among Chinese American and White patients were 79% and 76% for DNRs, 81% and 71% for DNIs, 79% and 81% for HCPs, and 52% and 40% for other ADs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that Chinese Americans had similar rates of advance care discussions, completed conversations earlier, and had similar to higher rates of AD documentation compared to White patients. Further studies are needed to confirm our preliminary findings.

Impact of self-decision to stop cancer treatment on advanced genitourinary cancer patients

Decision-making to stop cancer treatment in patients with advanced cancer is stressful, and it significantly influences subsequent end-of-life palliative treatment. However, little is known about the extent to which the patient's self-decisions influenced the prognostic period. This study focused on the patient's self-decision and investigated the impact of the self-decision to stop cancer treatment on their post-cancer treatment survival period and place of death.We retrospectively analyzed 167 cases of advanced genitourinary cancer patients (kidney cancer: 42; bladder cancer: 68; prostate cancer: 57) treated at the University of Fukui Hospital (UFH), who later died because of cancer. Of these, 100 patients decided to stop cancer treatment by themselves (self-decision group), while the families of the remaining 67 patients (family's decision group) decided to stop treatment on their behalf because the patient's decision-making ability was already impaired. Differences in the post-cancer-treatment survival period and place of death between the 2 groups were examined. The association between place of death and survival period was also analyzed.The median survival period after terminating cancer treatment was approximately 6 times longer in the self-decision group (145.5 days in self-decision group vs 23.0 days in family's decision group, P < .001). Proportions for places of death were as follows: among the self-decision group, 42.0% of patients died at UFH, 45.0% at other medical institutions, and 13.0% at home; among the family's decision group, 62.7% died at UFH, 32.8% at other medical institutions, and 4.5% at home. The proportion of patients who died at UFH was significantly higher among the family's decision group (P = .011). The median survival period was significantly shorter for patients who died at UFH (UFH: 30.0 days; other institutions/home: 161.0 days; P < .001).Significantly longer post-cancer-treatment survival period and higher home death rate were observed among patients whose cancer treatment was terminated based on their self-decision. Our results provide clinical evidence, especially in terms of prognostic period and place of death that support the importance of discussing bad news, such as stopping cancer treatment with patients.

Missing the target in cancer therapy

The deployment of molecular biomarkers that are indicative of sensitivity to tumor-targeted or immune-targeted cancer therapies improves the outcome of individual patients and increases the chances of successful drug approval. However, for many lethal malignancies, the majority of clinical trials are conducted with patients who do not have biomarkers and hence they miss the target.

Discussing Prognosis with Empathy to Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Our goal was to provide healthcare professionals (HCPs) with evidence-based data about what can be done to handle prognostic discussions with empathy.

RECENT FINDINGS

First, disclosing prognosis involves a good reason to do so and making sure that the patient will be able to process the discussion. Second, communication tips are given for the three dimensions of empathy: "establishing rapport with the patient," which should not be overlooked; the emotional dimension, which involves an accurate understanding of the patient and communication skills; and the "active/positive" dimension which is about giving hope, explaining things clearly and helping patients take control with shared decision-making and a planned future. Although communication tips are helpful, empathy training should be based more on the development of HCPs' emotional skills, in order to help them regulate their emotions and thus be more comfortable with those of patients and families. Furthermore, research into empathy toward minorities and relatives is needed.

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.

Discussing personalized prognosis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: development of a communication guide

BACKGROUND

Personalized ENCALS survival prediction model reliably estimates the personalized prognosis of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Concerns were raised on discussing personalized prognosis without causing anxiety and destroying hope. Tailoring communication to patient readiness and patient needs mediates the impact of prognostic disclosure. We developed a communication guide to support physicians in discussing personalized prognosis tailored to individual needs and preferences of people with ALS and their families.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary working group of neurologists, rehabilitation physicians, and healthcare researchers A) identified relevant topics for guidance, B) conducted a systematic review on needs of patients regarding prognostic discussion in life-limiting disease, C) drafted recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion, and refined and finalized these recommendations in consensus rounds, based on feedback of an expert advisory panel (patients, family member, ethicist, and spiritual counsellor).

RESULTS

A) Topics identified for guidance were 1) filling in the ENCALS survival model, and interpreting outcomes and uncertainty, and 2) tailoring discussion to individual needs and preferences of patients (information needs, role and needs of family, severe cognitive impairment or frontotemporal dementia, and non-western patients). B) 17 studies were included in the systematic review. C) Consensus procedures on drafted recommendations focused on selection of outcomes, uncertainty about estimated survival, culturally sensitive communication, and lack of decisional capacity. Recommendations for discussing the prognosis include the following: discuss prognosis based on the prognostic groups and their median survival, or, if more precise information is desired, on the interquartile range of the survival probability. Investigate needs and preferences of the patients and their families for prognostic disclosure, regardless of cultural background. If the patient does not want to know their prognosis, with patient permission discuss the prognosis with their family. If the patient is judged to lack decisional capacity, ask the family if they want to discuss the prognosis. Tailor prognostic disclosure step by step, discuss it in terms of time range, and emphasize uncertainty of individual survival time.

CONCLUSION

This communication guide supports physicians in tailoring discussion of personalized prognosis to the individual needs and preferences of people with ALS and their families.

Associations of Caregiver-Oncologist Discordance in Prognostic Understanding With Caregiver-Reported Therapeutic Alliance and Anxiety

CONTEXT

Discordance in prognostic understanding between caregivers of adults with advanced cancer and the oncologist may shape caregivers' views of the oncologist and bereavement outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

We examined prospective associations of caregiver-oncologist discordance with caregiver-oncologist therapeutic alliance and caregiver anxiety after patient death.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in a cluster randomized controlled trial from August 2012 to June 2014 in Western New York and California. At enrollment, caregivers and oncologists used a seven-point scale to rate their beliefs about the patient's curability and living two years or more: 100%, about 90%, about 75%, about 50 of 50, about 25%, about 10%, and 0%. Discordance was defined as a difference of two points or more. Outcomes at seven months after patient death included caregiver-oncologist therapeutic alliance (The Human Connection scale, modified into five items) and caregiver anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7). We conducted multivariable linear regression models to assess the independent associations of discordance with alliance and anxiety.

RESULTS

We included 97 caregivers (mean age 63) and 38 oncologists; 41% of caregiver-oncologist dyads had discordant beliefs about the patient's curability, and 63% of caregiver-oncologist dyads had discordant beliefs about living two years or more. On multivariate analysis, discordance in beliefs about curability was associated with lower anxiety (β = -2.20; SE 0.77; P = 0.005). Discordance in beliefs about length of life was associated with a weaker alliance (β = -5.87; SE = 2.56; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

A better understanding of how caregivers understand and come to terms with poor prognoses will guide interventions to improve cancer care delivery and outcomes of cancer treatment.

Estimating survival in advanced cancer: a comparison of estimates made by oncologists and patients

PURPOSE

To compare estimates of expected survival time (EST) made by patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists.

METHODS

At enrolment patients recorded their "understanding of how long you may have to live" in best-case, most-likely, and worst-case scenarios. Oncologists estimated survival time for each of their patients as the "median survival of a group of identical patients". We hypothesized that oncologists' estimates of EST would be unbiased (~ 50% longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]), imprecise (< 33% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST), associated with OST, and more accurate than patients' estimates of their own survival.

RESULTS

Twenty-six oncologists estimated EST for 179 patients. The median estimate of EST was 6.0 months, and the median OST was 6.2 months. Oncologists' estimates were unbiased (56% longer than OST), imprecise (27% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST), and significantly associated with OST (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93, p < 0.01). Only 41 patients (23%) provided a numerical estimate of their survival with 107 patients (60%) responding "I don't know". The median estimate by patients for their most-likely scenario was 12 months. Patient estimates of their most-likely scenario were less precise (17% within 0.67 to 1.33 times OST) and more likely to overestimate survival (85% longer than OST) than oncologist estimates.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists' estimates were unbiased and significantly associated with survival. Most patients with advanced cancer did not know their EST or overestimated their survival time compared to their oncologist, highlighting the need for improved prognosis communication training. Trial registration ACTRN1261300128871.

Dialysis Regret: Prevalence and Correlates

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Although some patients regret the decision to start dialysis, modifiable factors associated with regret have rarely been studied. We aimed to identify factors associated with patients' regret to initiate dialysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A 41-item questionnaire was administered to adult patients receiving maintenance dialysis in seven dialysis units located in Cleveland, Ohio, and its suburbs. Of the 450 patients asked to participate in the study, 423 agreed and 397 provided data on decisional regret. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of regret, which was assessed using a single item, "Do you regret your decision to start dialysis?" We report adjusted odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the following candidate predictors: knowledge of CKD, attitudes toward CKD treatment, and preference for end-of-life care.

RESULTS

Eighty-two of 397 respondents (21%) reported decisional regret. There were no significant demographic correlates of regret. Regret was more common when patients reported choosing dialysis to please doctors or family members (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 4.31; P<0.001). Patients who reported having a prognostic discussion about life expectancy with their doctors (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.98; P=0.03) and those who had completed a living will (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.95; P=0.03) were less likely to report regret with dialysis initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Dialysis regret was common in this sample. Demographic factors (age, sex, marital status, race, or educational attainment) were not significantly associated with regret, but modifiable care processes were.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_06_09_CJN13781119.mp3.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS

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

Illness and prognostic understanding in patients with hematologic malignancies

It is critical for patients with hematologic malignancies to have an accurate understanding of their illness and prognosis to make informed treatment decisions. Illness and prognostic understanding have primarily been studied in patients with solid tumors, however, data in patients with hematologic malignancies are rapidly growing. Patients with hematologic malignancies often face a unique and unpredictable illness trajectory with the possibility of cure persisting even in relapsed and refractory settings. These patients often require intensive therapies such as high-dose chemotherapy, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT), or CAR T-cell therapy, which carry with them significant risk of morbidity, mortality, and prognostic uncertainty. In this review article, we first described the current literature on illness and prognostic understanding in patients with hematologic malignancies including 1) patients' varying desire for prognostic information; (2) patients' prognostic misperceptions, (3) the association between patients' prognostic understanding and their psychological outcomes; and (4) barriers to prognostic understanding. Next, we examined insights gained from the literature about illness and prognostic understanding in patients with solid tumors to guide our understanding of the research gaps in hematologic malignancies. Future studies are needed to better delineate the longitudinal relationship between prognostic understanding, psychological distress, and coping in patients with hematologic malignancies. Strategies such as communicating effectively about prognosis, cultivating adaptive coping in the face of a terminal prognosis, and integrating specialty palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies have the potential to improve patients' prognostic understanding and their quality of life and care.

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.

Validated Nomogram Predicting 6-Month Survival in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Receiving First-Line 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan

BACKGROUND

FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is an option for fit patients with metastatic (MPC) and locally advanced unresectable (LAPC) pancreatic cancer. However, no criteria reliably identify patients with better outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We investigated putative prognostic factors among 137 MPC/LAPC patients treated with triplet chemotherapy. Association with 6-month survival status (primary endpoint) was assessed by multivariate logistic regression models. A nomogram predicting the risk of death at 6 months was built by assigning a numeric score to each identified variable, weighted on its level of association with survival. External validation was performed in an independent data set of 206 patients. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03590275).

RESULTS

Four variables (performance status, liver metastases, baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio) were found to be associated with 6-month survival by multivariate analysis or had sufficient clinical plausibility to be included in the nomogram. Accuracy was confirmed in the validation cohort (C index = 0.762; 95% confidence interval, 0.713-0.825). After grouping all cases, 4 subsets with different outcomes were identified by 0, 1, 2, or > 2 poor prognostic features (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

The nomogram we constructed accurately predicts the risk of death in the first 6 months after initiation of FOLFIRINOX in MPC/LAPC patients. This tool could be useful to guide communication about prognosis, and to inform the design and interpretation of clinical trials.

Emotions in the room: common emotional reactions to discussions of poor prognosis and tools to address them

Introduction: Advanced cancer patients often want prognostic information, and discussions of prognosis have been shown to enhance patient understanding of their illness. Such discussions can lead to high-quality, value-consistent care at the end of life, yet they are also often emotionally challenging. Despite how common and normal it is for patients to experience transient emotional distress when receiving 'bad news' about prognosis, emotional responses have been under-addressed in existing literature on prognostic discussions. Areas covered: Drawing upon psychology research, principles of skilled clinical communication, and published approaches to discussions of serious illness, we summarize patients' common emotional reactions and coping strategies. We then provide suggestions for how to respond to them in clinic. Expert opinion: Ultimately, effective management of emotional reactions to bad news may lead to earlier, more frequent, and more transparent discussions of prognosis, thus promoting cancer patients' understanding of, and adjustment to, their illness and improving the quality of their end-of-life care.