Agreement between patients' and radiation oncologists' cancer diagnosis and prognosis perceptions: A cross sectional study in Japan

Fear of Recurrence in Advanced Cancer Patients: Sociodemographic, Clinical, and Psychological Correlates

Fear of cancer recurrence significantly impacts advanced cancer patients, prompting emotional distress and increased healthcare utilization. This present study aims to analyze the fear of recurrence among patients with advanced cancer undergoing systemic treatment and its relationship with sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in 15 oncology departments across Spain, involving patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic cancer eligible for systemic treatment. Participants provided demographic information and completed instruments such as the Cancer Worry Scale, Brief Symptom Inventory, Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale, and the Duke-UNC-11 Functional Social Support Questionnaire (DUFSSQ). A total of 1195 participants participated: median age 66, 56% male, mostly metastatic cancers (80%), and common tumor sites. Two fear groups emerged: 28% low and 72% high levels of fear. High fear was associated with being female, being younger, lower levels of education, and worse survival estimates. High fear correlated with more depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms, uncertainty, and stronger social support. Multivariate analyses indicated that younger patients, those with shorter survival estimates, higher depression and anxiety scores, more uncertainty, and stronger social support had a greater likelihood of experiencing fear of recurrence, while the opposite was true for older patients. This study underscores distinct fear of recurrence profiles in advanced cancer patients, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and support. Future research should delve deeper into understanding their repercussions for improving patient care and well-being.

Prognostic Understanding and Goals of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perceptions and recall of treatment for prostate cancer: A survey of two populations

Background

The complexity of prostate cancer care can impact on patient understanding and participation in shared decision-making. This study used a survey-based approach to investigate patients' recall of their prostate cancer treatment, and more broadly, to understand the perceptions of patients and the general population of prostate cancer treatment.

Method

The survey was completed by 236 patients with prostate cancer (PCa cohort) and 240 participants from the general population of Australia (GenPop cohort). Free-text comments from both cohorts were analysed using content analysis. The PCa cohort reported which treatments and image-guidance related procedures they had received. These patient-reports were compared to medical records and analysed using proportion agreement, kappa statistics and regression analysis.

Results

135 (57%) PCa and 99 (41%) GenPop respondents provided at least one comment. Five major themes were identified by both cohorts: sharing experiences of treatment; preferences insights and reflections; mindsets; general commentary on the survey; and factors missing from the survey. There was overall good treatment recall amongst the PCa cohort, with proportions of correct recall ranging from 97.3% for chemotherapy to 66.8% for hormone therapy. There was a tendency for younger patients (<70 years old) to recall their hormone treatment more correctly.

Conclusion

Participant comments suggest the complexity of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the varying perceptions and experiences of participants with prostate cancer. Patients' recall overall was good for both treatment and image-guidance related procedures/approaches, however the poorer recall of hormone therapy requires further investigation.

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.

Patient Preferences for Discussing Life Expectancy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Discussing life expectancy helps inform decisions related to preventive medication, screening, and personal care planning. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on patient preferences for discussing life expectancy and to identify predictors for these preferences.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and gray literature from inception until 17 February 2021. Two authors screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data and one author assessed quality. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients willing to discuss life expectancy. We reported descriptive statistics, performed a narrative synthesis, and explored sub-groups of patients according to patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies with an accumulated population of 27,570 participants were included, comprising quantitative survey/questionnaire studies (n=27) and qualitative interview studies (n=14). Willingness to discuss life expectancy ranged from 19 to 100% (median 61%, interquartile range (IQR) 50-73) across studies, with the majority (77%) reporting more than half of subjects willing to discuss. There was considerable heterogeneity in willingness to discuss life expectancy, even between studies from patients with similar ages, diseases, and cultural profiles. The highest variability in willingness to discuss was found among patients with cancer (range 19-100%, median 61%, IQR 51-81) and patients aged 50-64 years (range 19-97%, median 61%, IQR 45-87). This made it impossible to determine predictors for willingness to discuss life expectancy.

DISCUSSION

Most patients are willing to discuss life expectancy; however, a substantial proportion is not. Heterogeneity and variability in preferences make it challenging to identify clear predictors of willingness to discuss. Variability in preferences may to some extent be influenced by age, disease, and cultural differences. These findings highlight the individual and complex nature in which patients approach this topic and stress the importance of clinicians considering eliciting patient's individual preferences when initiating discussions about life expectancy.

Association Between Caregiver-Oncologist Discordance in Patient's Life Expectancy Estimates and Caregiver Perceived Autonomy Support by the Oncologist

BACKGROUND

Caregiver perceived autonomy support by the oncologist is important for caregiver well-being and may be affected by the patient's survival. We determined the association of caregiver-oncologist discordance in patient's life expectancy estimates with perceived autonomy support over time and whether the association differed by patient survival status.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used data from a geriatric assessment cluster-randomized trial (URCC 13070) that recruited patients aged at least 70 years with incurable cancer considering or receiving treatment, their caregivers, and their oncologists. At baseline, caregivers and oncologists were asked to estimate patient's life expectancy (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, 2-5 years, and >5 years; any difference in response was considered discordant). At 4-6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, caregivers completed the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ), which measured perceived autonomy support by the oncologist. Generalized estimating equation modeling was conducted to assess the association of baseline caregiver-oncologist discordance with longitudinal HCCQ scores, stratified by patient 6-month survival status.

RESULTS

Discordant life expectancy estimates were present in 72.0% of dyads. In multivariate analyses, caregiver-oncologist discordance in patient's life expectancy estimates was associated with higher caregiver HCCQ scores. In stratified analysis, caregiver-oncologist discordance was associated with lower caregiver HCCQ scores (β = -3.46; 95% CI, -4.64 to -2.29) among patients who died within 6 months but with higher caregiver HCCQ scores (β = 1.33; 95% CI, 0.63-2.04) among patients who survived beyond 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Interventions aimed at mitigating discordance need to consider its association with caregiver perceived autonomy support and patient's survival in order to better inform caregiver expectations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Among patients who died within the first 6 months, caregivers who estimated a different length of life for the patient compared with oncologists were more likely to report lower support from the oncologist, whereas the opposite relationship was seen within patients who survived beyond the first 6 months. When designing interventions to improve caregiver understanding of the patient's prognosis, its relationship with caregiver-perceived support and patient's survival needs to be considered.

Prospective Study Comparing Clinicians' and Cancer Patients' Estimates of Risk of Relapse and Toxicity with Adjuvant Chemotherapy

The aim of this study was to compare physicians' and patients' estimates of risk of relapse and toxicity. A prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study including 735 patients with cancer and 29 oncologists. Physicians' appraisals of risk of relapse with and without chemotherapy (27.5% and 43.1%) and risk of severe toxicity (12.2%) were more realistic than those of patients (34.6%, 78.5%, and 57.4%, respectively). The greater the risk of recurrence and risk of toxicity estimated, the less physicians expressed satisfaction with SDM. Estimations of risk of relapse and toxicity are important in diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making and can help patients face their situation.