Knowledge about hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; mutation carriers and physicians at equal levels

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Identification and adequate management of individuals at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is crucial since surveillance programmes reduce morbidity and mortality. We investigated knowledge about key features of HNPCC in at risk individuals and physicians in surgery, gynecology and oncology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were collected using a questionnaire which was answered by 67 mutation carriers and 102 physicians from the southern Swedish health care region. The statements were related to colorectal cancer, heredity and surveillance and the physicians were also asked questions about cancer risks and surveillance strategies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both groups answered questions on colorectal cancer risk, surveillance and genetic testing well, whereas answers about inheritance and risks for HNPCC associated cancer were less accurate. Only half of the family members and one third of the physicians correctly estimated the risk to inherit an HNPCC predisposing mutation. Among family members, young age (<57 years), female sex and recent genetic counseling significantly correlated with better results. Physicians generally underestimated the risk of HNPCC associated cancers and three out of four suggested a later starting age for surveillance than recommended.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The finding of similar levels of knowledge about key features of HNPCC in at risk individuals and physicians reflect the challenge physicians face in keeping up to date on hereditary cancer and may have implications for the clinical management and professional relations with HNPCC family members.</p

Patients' and physicians' disagreement on patients' understanding of clinical cancer trial information:a pairwise pilot study of mirroring subjective assessments compared with objective measurements

Background: Informed consent is a prerequisite for patients included in clinical trials. Trial design, inclusion criteria and legal requirements are increasingly complex. This complexity challenges design and delivery of written and oral trial information to ensure understandable information. To evaluate the level of concordance between patients' and informing physicians' assessments regarding patient understanding of trial information, we carried out a study based on paired questionnaire data from patients and their physicians. These assessments of patient understanding were further correlated with patients' factual knowledge of the information provided. Methods: This pilot study included patients and physicians immediately after the patients had received information on one of 23 ongoing phase III randomised cancer trials at two Swedish sites. In total, 46 patients and 17 physicians contributed data based on two new questionnaires with seven mirroring questions, where concordance was analysed with McNemar's test. These assessments of patients' self-estimated understanding were further correlated with the Patient Understanding of Research (Q-PUR) questionnaire that assesses factual knowledge of the information provided. Results: For each question, 47-61% of the patient-physician pairs were in concordance regarding their assessments of patients' 'fully understanding' or 'not fully understanding' various aspects of the trial information. For the discordant pairs, the physicians rated patient understanding lower than the patients themselves, for all seven questions. This difference was significant for five of the questions (P ≤ 0.017). The median Q-PUR knowledge score was 11 out of 12, but this score did not significantly correlate with the assessments, either from patients or from physicians. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a trend for physicians to rate the level of understanding of trial information among potential trial patients lower than the patients themselves. Application of Q-PUR revealed high knowledge scores, but without correlation to the assessments. These findings need validation in an independent setting, with an improved instrument with mirroring questions, and a better-matched measurement of patients' factual knowledge. These results suggest that physicians need to improve their ability to assess patient understanding of clinical trial information, in order to be able to tailor the patients' information individually

Living with Hereditary Non-polyposis Colorectal Cancer; Experiences from and Impact of Genetic Testing.

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is one of our most common cancer syndromes and an increasing number of individuals live in families with verified hereditary cancer. We conducted an interview study to explore experiences from and perceived impact on life after genetic testing for HNPCC. Three major themes emerged: reactions and emotions, family relations and implications for life. Among the reactions described were suspecting heredity, feelings of guilt, the importance of experiential knowledge, and coping strategies. The impact on family relations was related to perceived responsibility for conveying information, encountering different reactions among family members, and difficulties in communication and relations. The implications described included uncertainty, adaptation, new choices and changes in life, family planning issues, and experiences of surveillance programs. We suggest that the themes and sub-themes identified should be taken into account during genetic counselling in order to facilitate the spread of information and to prepare family members for the impact on life that knowledge about hereditary cancer may have

Patient representatives' views on patient information in clinical cancer trials

BACKGROUND: Patient enrolment into clinical trials is based on oral information and informed consent, which includes an information sheet and a consent certificate. The written information should be complete, but at the same time risks being so complex that it may be questioned if a fully informed consent is possible to provide. We explored patient representatives’ views and perceptions on the written trial information used in clinical cancer trials. METHODS: Written patient information leaflets used in four clinical trials for colorectal cancer were used for the study. The trials included phase I-III trials, randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated chemotherapy/targeted therapy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant and palliative settings. Data were collected through focus groups and were analysed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Two major themes emerged: emotional responses and cognitive responses. Subthemes related to the former included individual preferences and perceptions of effect, while subthemes related to the latter were comprehensibility and layout. Based on these observations the patient representatives provided suggestions for improvement, which largely included development of future simplified and more attractive informed consent forms. CONCLUSIONS: The emotional and cognitive responses to written patient information reported by patient representatives provides a basis for revised formats in future trials and add to the body of information that support use of plain language, structured text and illustrations to improve the informed consent process and thereby patient enrolment into clinical trials