Treatment priorities in oncology: do we want to live longer or better?

Relationship between patient-reported health-related quality of life as measured with the SF-36 or SF-12 and their mortality risk in patients with diverse cancer type: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as measured with the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) or Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) and mortality risk in patients with diverse types of cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using CINAHL, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus databases to collect articles published before December 2022. Of these, observational studies that examined the association between HRQOL and mortality risk in patients with various cancer types were extracted. A subgroup analysis with a focus on the timing when HRQOL assessment was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included in the final analysis. Through overall analysis of the timing of HRQOL measurements, most domains were found to be significantly associated with the mortality risk, irrespective of the timing of assessment, but HRQOL assessed in pre-treatment and palliative phases had particularly strong association.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present review, the physical functioning domain of HRQOL was found to be associated with mortality risk in a diverse group of cancer patients. This suggests the need for supportive care to improve HRQOL in cancer patients.

Outcomes that matter to patients with cancer: living longer and living better

Oncologists and cancer patients generally agree that the primary goals of advanced cancer treatment are to lengthen and/or improve patient survival. Yet over the last two decades, clinical trials of new cancer treatments have moved away from measuring outcomes that matter to patients. Increasingly, new drugs for advanced cancer treatment reach the market by demonstrating improvements in surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a measure of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Research has shown that when patients are fully informed about the meaning of PFS, about half would not choose additional treatment for any magnitude of gain in PFS in the absence of an overall survival improvement. It's time to get back to designing trials that answer clinically meaningful questions and measure the outcomes that truly matter to patients. Engaging educated patient advocates in meaningful ways in clinical trial design and reporting would be a step in this direction.

Hospital factors determining overall survival in cancer patients undergoing curative treatment

BACKGROUND

In oncology, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) are key indicators. The factors that affect OS and QoL include tumor-related characteristics (stage and grade), patient-related factors (performance status and comorbidities), and cancer-directed therapy (CDT)-related aspects. In addition, external factors such as governance or policy (e.g., inaccessibility to CDT, increased distance to service, poor socioeconomic status, lack of insurance), and hospital-related factors (e.g., facility volume and surgeon volume) can influence OS and QoL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary objective of this narrative review was to identify hospital-related factors that affect OS and QoL in patients receiving curative CDT. The authors defined extrinsic factors that can be modified at the hospital level as "hospital-related" factors. Only factors supported by randomized controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews (SR) and/or meta-analyses (MA), and population database (PDB) analyses that address the relationship between OS and hospital factors were considered.

RESULTS

The literature review found that high hospital or oncologist volume, adherence to evidence-based medicine (EBM), optimal time-to-treatment initiation (TTI), and decreased overall treatment time (OTT) increase OS in patients undergoing curative CDT. The use of case management strategies was associated with better symptom management and treatment compliance, but had a mixed effect on QoL. The practice of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in cancer patients did not result in an increase in OS. There was insufficient evidence to support the impact of factors such as teaching or academic centers, hospital infrastructure, and treatment compliance on OS and QoL.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that hospital policies should focus on increasing hospital and oncologist volume, adhering to EBM, optimizing TTI, and reducing OTT for cancer patients receiving curative treatment.

Living Longer or Better-Patient's Choice in Cardiac Surgery Is Gender-Dependent-A Multicenter Study

In view of the increasing age of cardiac surgery patients, questions arise about the expected postoperative quality of life and the hoped-for prolonged life expectancy. Little is known so far about how these, respectively, are weighted by the patients concerned. This study aims to obtain information on the patients' preferences. Between 2015 and 2017, data were analyzed from 1349 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery at seven heart centers in Germany. Baseline data regarding the patient's situation as well as a questionnaire regarding quality of life versus lifespan were taken preoperatively. Patients were divided by age into four groups: below 60, 60-70, 70-80, and above 80 years. As a result, when asked to decide between quality of life and length of life, about 60% of the male patients opted for quality of life, independent of their age. On the other hand, female patients' preference for quality of life increased significantly with age, from 51% in the group below sixty to 76% in the group above eighty years. This finding suggests that female patients adapt their preferences with age, whereas male patients do not. This should impact further the treatment decisions of elderly patients in cardiac surgery within a shared decision-making process.

Patients' understanding of oncology clinical endpoints: A literature review

OBJECTIVES

Oncology clinical trials use a variety of clinical endpoints. Patients' understanding of the differences between clinical endpoints is important because misperceptions of treatment efficacy may affect treatment decisions. The objective of this literature review is to find and synthesize available empirical publications assessing patients' understanding of common oncology clinical endpoints.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of 5 databases and 3 conferences, limiting the search to articles and abstracts published in English through September 2018. We reviewed the titles and abstracts for inclusion, then reviewed full texts to determine if they reported empirical research studies focused on (1) clinical endpoints, (2) oncology, and (3) patient understanding. The original search identified 497publications, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Available literature yields little information on this topic.The few publications that do exist suggest that healthcare professionals and cancer patients generally do not discuss clinical endpoint concepts and that patients can be confused about the purpose of a treatment based on misperceptions about endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed on how to discuss oncology clinical endpoints with patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient-friendly definitions of clinical endpoints may help healthcare providers communicate important information about treatments to patients.

Kidney cancer survivorship care: Patient experiences in a Canadian setting

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of kidney cancer (KCa) in Canada is rising. Despite this, there is a shortage of research assessing KCa care experiences. This study aims to explore the current experiences of KCa survivors related to treatment and management, information provision, and barriers to care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, descriptive study of KCa patients was conducted online and through various cancer centers across Canada. English- and French-speaking adults who received a KCa diagnosis and were currently undergoing treatment or had completed treatment in Canada were eligible to participate.

RESULTS

In total, 368 surveys were completed. Ten percent of respondents had not yet received treatment, 29% were receiving treatment, and 56% had completed treatment. Most respondents (72%) had localized KCa (stage 0-3) at diagnosis. Sixty-one percent of respondents reported that their doctors discussed various treatment options with them and 24% reported discussing applicable clinical trials. Most (85%) respondents received information about their KCa and 36% discussed where to get information about their disease and support. The most commonly reported barriers to care were side effects (26%), system delays (26%), not having access to certain treatments (25%), and financial burden (24%). More participants in Central Region and Quebec (p=0.004) and rural/suburban (p=0.014) areas reported lacking access to certain treatments and KCa experts.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first large-scale study to explore access to care experiences of Canadian KCa survivors. Results show examples of good patient-centered care and provide new practical information that can inform efforts to improve patient-centered care for KCa patients.

Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and the possibility of trading quality of life (QoL) for length of life (LoL). Little information is available regarding patients' preferences and attitudes toward their cancer treatment and the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life. The aim of this review is to determine the complex trade-offs and underpinning factors that make patients with cancer choose quality over quantity of life.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MeSH terms: cancer, longevity or LoL, QoL, decision making, trade-off, and health utility. Articles retrieved were published between 1942 and October 2018.

RESULTS

Out of 4393 articles, 30 were included in this review. Older age, which may be linked to declining physical status, was associated with a preference for QoL over LoL. Younger patients were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment to increase survival years. Preference for QoL and LoL was not influenced by gender, education, religion, having children, marital status, or type of cancer. Patients with better health valued LoL and inversely those with poorer physical status preferred QoL.

CONCLUSION

Baseline QoL and future expectations of life seem to be key determinants of preference for QoL versus LoL in cancer patients. In-depth studies are required to understand these trade-offs and the compromises patients are willing to make regarding QoL or LoL, especially in older patients with naturally limited life expectancy.

Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and the possibility of trading quality of life (QoL) for length of life (LoL). Little information is available regarding patients' preferences and attitudes toward their cancer treatment and the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life. The aim of this review is to determine the complex trade-offs and underpinning factors that make patients with cancer choose quality over quantity of life.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MeSH terms: cancer, longevity or LoL, QoL, decision making, trade-off, and health utility. Articles retrieved were published between 1942 and October 2018.

RESULTS

Out of 4393 articles, 30 were included in this review. Older age, which may be linked to declining physical status, was associated with a preference for QoL over LoL. Younger patients were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment to increase survival years. Preference for QoL and LoL was not influenced by gender, education, religion, having children, marital status, or type of cancer. Patients with better health valued LoL and inversely those with poorer physical status preferred QoL.

CONCLUSION

Baseline QoL and future expectations of life seem to be key determinants of preference for QoL versus LoL in cancer patients. In-depth studies are required to understand these trade-offs and the compromises patients are willing to make regarding QoL or LoL, especially in older patients with naturally limited life expectancy.

Living better or living longer? Perceptions of patients and health care professionals in oncology

BACKGROUND

Cancer can influence the views of patients on treatment goals and make them different from those of health care professionals (HCPs). It is crucial to understand patient expectations regarding cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer and HCPs to evaluate their perceptions about treatment priorities and to analyse variables that might influence their opinions. To identify treatment choices, we interviewed all participants using a structured questionnaire with fictitious case vignettes.

RESULTS

We enrolled a total of 230 participants, including 144 patients and 86 HCPs (35 nurses, 21 physicians, 30 others). Treatment priority between survival time (28.5% for patients vs. 8.1% for HCP) and quality of life (45.8% vs. 87.2%) differed significantly, with the remaining participants stating they were uncertain or unwilling to respond, or providing invalid responses (P < 0.01). In logistic regression, prioritising survival time was more frequent in patients, adjusting for age and gender (odds ratio (OR) = 3.95; P < 0.01). The view that the physician alone should be responsible for treatment choices was more frequent among patients than HCPs (18.8 vs. 5.8%; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In Brazil, our results suggest that survival time is more important for patients with cancer than for HCPs, whereas quality of life is more important for HCPs than for patients with cancer, who place great emphasis on physicians as decision-makers. Given that Brazilian patients often rely on physicians for decisions, the potential impact of different priorities between survival time and quality of life when patients and HCPs are compared is unknown.

Radiation therapy remains the key cost driver of oncology inpatient treatment

OBJECTIVE

Current radiation therapy capacities in Serbia and most of Eastern Europe are heavily lagging behind population needs. The primary study aim was assessment of direct costs of cancer medical care for patients suffering from cancer with assigned radiotherapy-based treatment protocols. Identification of key cost drivers and trends during 2010-2013 comparing brachytherapy and teleradiotherapy was a secondary objective of the study.

METHODS

Retrospective, bottom-up database analysis was conducted on electronic discharge invoices. Payer's perspective has been adopted with a 1-year long time horizon. Total sample size was 2544 patients during a 4-years long observation period (2010-2013). The sample consisted of all patients with confirmed malignancy disorder receiving inpatient radiation therapy in a large university hospital.

RESULTS

Diagnostics and treatment cost of cancer in the largest Western Balkans market of Serbia were heavily dominated by radiation therapy related direct medical costs. Total costs of care as well as mean cost per patient were steadily decreasing due to budget cuts caused by global recession. The paradox is that at the same time the budget share of radiotherapy increased for almost 15% and in value-based terms for €109 per patient (in total €109,330). Second ranked cost drivers were nursing care and imaging diagnostics. Costs of high-tech visualizing examinations were heavily dominated by nuclear medicine tests.

CONCLUSION

The budget impact of radiation oncology to the large tertiary care university clinics of the Balkans is likely to remain significant in the future. Brachytherapy exhibited a slow growth pattern, while teleradiotherapy remained stable in terms of value-based turnover of medical services. Upcoming heavy investment into the national network of radiotherapy facilities will emphasize the unsatisfied needs. Huge contemporary budget share of radiotherapy coupled with rising cancer prevalence brings this issue into the hot spot of the ongoing cost containment efforts by local governments.