Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice

Item does not contain fulltextIn palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making

Social gradients in self-reported health and well-being among adults aged 50 and over in Pune District, India

Background: India’s older population is projected to increase up to 96 million by 2011 with older people accounting for 18% of its population by 2051. The Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health aims to improve empirical understanding of health and well-being of older adults in developing countries. Objectives: To examine age and socio-economic changes on a range of key domains in self-reported health and well-being amongst older adults. Design: A cross-sectional survey of 5,430 adults aged 50 and over using a shortened version of the SAGE questionnaire to assess self-reported assessments (scales of 1–5) of performance, function, disability, quality of life and well-being. Self-reported responses were calibrated using anchoring vignettes in eight key domains of mobility, self-care, pain, cognition, interpersonal relationships, sleep/energy, affect, and vision. WHO Disability Assessment Schedule Index and WHO health scores were calculated to examine for associations with socio-demographic variables. Results: Disability in all domains increased with increasing age and decreasing levels of education. Females and the oldest old without a living spouse reported poorer health status and greater disability across all domains. Performance and functionality self-reports were similar across all SES quintiles. Self-reports on quality of life were not significantly influenced by socio-demographic variables. Discussion: The study provides standardised and comparable self-rated health data using anchoring vignettes in an older population. Though expectations of good health, function and performance decrease with age, self-reports of disability severity significantly increased with age, more so if female, if uneducated and living without a spouse. However, the presence or absence of spouse did not significantly alter quality of life self-reports, suggesting a possible protective effect provided by traditional joint family structures in India, where older people are social if not financial assets for their children

'Being there' for women with metastatic breast cancer: a pan-European patient survey

BACKGROUND: Understanding their experiences of diagnosis is integral to improving the quality of care for women living with advanced/metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A survey, initiated in March 2011, was conducted in two stages. First, the views of 47 breast cancer-related patient groups in eight European countries were sought on standards of breast cancer care and unmet needs of patients. Findings were used to develop a patient-centric survey to capture personal experiences of advanced breast cancer to determine insights into the ‘trade-off' between extending overall survival and side effects associated with its treatment. The second online survey was open to women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, or their carers, and responders were recruited through local patient groups. Data were collected via anonymous local language questionnaires. RESULTS: The online stage II survey received a total of 230 responses from 17 European countries: 94% of respondents had locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and 6% were adult carers. Although the overall experience of care was generally good/excellent (77%), gaps were still perceived in terms of treatment choice and information provision. Treatment choice for patients was felt to be lacking by 32% of responders. In addition, 68% of those who responded would have liked more information about future medical treatments and research, with 57% wishing to receive this information from their oncologist. Two-thirds (66%) of women with advanced breast cancer, or their carers, believed life-extending treatment to be important so that they can spend more time with family and friends, and 67% said that the treatment was worthwhile, despite potential associated side effects. CONCLUSION: These findings show a continuing need to provide women with advanced breast cancer with better information and emphasise the importance that these patients often place on prolonging survival

Assessing the information desire of patients with advanced cancer by providing information with a decision aid, which is evaluated in a randomized trial: a study protocol

Contains fulltext : 95653.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: There is a continuing debate on the desirability of informing patients with cancer and thereby involving them in treatment decisions. On the one hand, information uptake may be hampered, and additional stress could be inflicted by involving these patients. On the other hand, even patients with advanced cancer desire information on risks and prognosis. To settle the debate, a decision aid will be developed and presented to patients with advanced disease at the point of decision making. The aid is used to assess the amount of information desired. Factors related to information desire are explored, as well as the ability of the medical oncologist to judge the patient's information desire. The effects of the information on patient well-being are assessed by comparing the decision aid group with a usual care group. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a randomized controlled trial of patients with advanced colorectal, breast, or ovarian cancer who have started treatment with first-line palliative chemotherapy. The trial will consist of 100 patients in the decision aid group and 70 patients in the usual care group. To collect complete data of 170 patients, 246 patients will be approached for the study. Patients will complete a baseline questionnaire on sociodemographic data, well-being measures, and psychological measures, believed to predict information desire. The medical oncologist will judge the patient's information desire. After disease progression is diagnosed, the medical oncologist offers the choice between second-line palliative chemotherapy plus best supportive care (BSC) and BSC alone. Randomization will take place to determine whether patients will receive usual care (n = 70) or usual care and the decision aid (n = 100). The aid offers information about the potential risks and benefits of both treatment options, in terms of adverse events, tumour response, and survival. Patients decide for each item whether they desire the information or not. Two follow-up questionnaires will evaluate the effect of the decision aid. DISCUSSION: This study attempts to settle the debate on the desirability of informing patients with cancer. In contrast to several earlier studies, we will actually deliver information on treatment options to patients at the point of decision making

The context influences doctors' support of shared decision-making in cancer care

Most cancer patients in westernised countries now want all information about their situation, good or bad, and many wish to be involved in decision-making. The attitudes to and use of shared decision-making (SDM) by cancer doctors is not well known. Australian cancer clinicians treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological, or urological cancer were surveyed to identify their usual approach to decision-making and their comfort with different decision-making styles when discussing treatment with patients. A response rate of 59% resulted in 624 complete surveys, which explored usual practice in discussing participation in decision-making, providing information, and perception of the role patients want to play. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of use of SDM. Most cancer doctors (62.4%) reported using SDM and being most comfortable with this approach. Differences were apparent between reported high comfort with SDM and less frequent usual practice. Multivariate analysis showed that specialisation in breast or urological cancers compared to other cancers (AOR 3.02), high caseload of new patients per month (AOR 2.81) and female gender (AOR 1.87) were each independently associated with increased likelihood of use of SDM. Barriers exist to the application of SDM by doctors according to clinical situation and clinician characteristics

The relationship between smoking and quality of life in advanced lung cancer patients: a prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer, and continued smoking may compromise treatment efficacy and quality of life (health-related quality of life (HRQoL)) in patients with advanced lung cancer. Our aims were to determine (i) preference for treatments which promote quality over length of life depending on smoking status, (ii) the relationship between HRQoL and smoking status at diagnosis (T1), after controlling for demographic and clinical variables, and (iii) changes in HRQoL 6 months after diagnosis (T2) depending on smoking status. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-six patients with advanced lung cancer were given questionnaires to assess HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), time-trade-off for life quality versus quantity (QQQ) and smoking history (current, former or never smoker) at diagnosis (T1) and 6 months later (T2). Medical data were extracted from case records. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 202 (68.2 %) patients at T1 and 114 (53.3 %) at T2. Patients favoured treatments that would enhance quality of life over increased longevity. Those who continued smoking after diagnosis reported worse HRQoL than former smokers or those who never smoked. Smoking status was a significant independent predictor of coughing in T1 (worse in smokers) and cognitive functioning in T2 (better in never smokers). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking by patients with advanced lung cancer is associated with worse symptoms on diagnosis and poorer HRQoL for those who continue smoking. The results have implications to help staff explain the consequences of smoking to patients