Search

Background: Goals of care conversations are essential to delivery of goal concordant care. Infrequent and inconsistent goals of care documentation potentially limit delivery of goal concordant care., Methods: At Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Cancer Center, a standardized documentation template was designed and implemented to increase goals of care documentation by oncologists. The centralized, prompt-based template included value clarification of the goals and values of advanced cancer patients beyond treatment preferences. Documented conversations using the template during the initial pilot period were reviewed to characterization the clinical context in which conversations were recorded. Common goals and motivators were also identified., Results: A total of 178 advanced cancer patients had at least 1 documented conversation by a medical oncologist using the goals of care template. Oncologists consistently documented within the template goals of therapy and motivating factors in decision making. The most frequently documented goals of care were "Avoiding Pain and Suffering," "Physical Independence," and "Living as Long as Possible." The least recorded goal was "Comfort Focused Treatment Only.", Conclusions: Review of oncologist documented goals of care conversations using a prompt-based template allowed for characterization of the clinical context, therapy goals and motivators of advanced cancer patients. Communication of goals of care conversations by oncologists using a standardized prompt-based template within a centralized location has the potential to improve delivery of goal concordant care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: There are missed opportunities to discuss goals and preferences for care with seriously ill patients in the acute care setting. It is unknown which factors most influence clinician decision-making about communication at the point of care., Objective: This study utilized a cognitive-interviewing technique to better understand what leads clinicians to decide to have a goals of care (GOC) discussion in the acute care setting., Methods: A convenience sample of 15 oncologists, intensivists and hospitalists were recruited from a single academic medical center in a large urban area. Participants completed a cognitive interview describing their thought process when deciding whether to engage in GOC discussions in clinical vignettes., Results: 6 interconnected factors emerged as important in determining how likely the physician was to consider engaging in GOC at that time; (1) the participants' mental model of GOC, (2) timing of GOC related to stability, acuity and reversibility of the patient's condition, (3) clinical factors such as uncertainty, prognosis and recency of diagnosis, (4) patient factors including age and emotional state, (5) participants' role on the care team, and (6) clinician factors such as emotion and communication skill level., Conclusion: Participants were hesitant to commit to the present moment as the right time for GOC discussions based on variations in clinical presentation. Clinical decision support systems that include more targeted information about risk of clinical deterioration and likelihood of reversal of the acute condition may prompt physicians to discuss GOC, but more support for managing discomfort with uncertainty is also needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: While shared decision making (SDM) is advocated for ethical reasons and beneficial outcomes, SDM might also negatively affect patients with incurable cancer. The current study explored whether SDM, and an oncologist training in SDM, are associated with adverse outcomes (i.e., patient anxiety, tension, helplessness/hopelessness, decisional uncertainty, and reduced fighting spirit)., Design: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of SDM interventions in the context of advanced cancer. The relations between observed SDM (OPTION12), specific SDM elements (4SDM), oncologist SDM training, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. We modeled adverse outcomes as a multivariate phenomenon, followed by univariate regressions if significant., Results: In total, 194 patients consulted by 31 oncologists were included. In a multivariate analysis, observed SDM and adverse outcomes were significantly related. More specifically, more observed SDM in the consultation was related to patients reporting more tension ( P  = 0.002) and more decisional uncertainty ( P  = 0.004) at 1 wk after the consultation. The SDM element "informing about the options" was especially found to be related to adverse outcomes, specifically to more helplessness/hopelessness ( P  = 0.002) and more tension ( P  = 0.016) at 1 wk after the consultation. Whether the patient consulted an oncologist who had received SDM training or not was not significantly related to adverse outcomes. No relations with long-term adverse outcomes were found., Conclusions: It is important for oncologists to realize that for some patients, SDM may temporarily be associated with negative emotions. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and whether and how burden may be minimized for patients., Highlights: Observed shared decision making was related to more tension and uncertainty postconsultation in advanced cancer patientsHowever, training oncologists in SDM did not affect adverse outcomes.Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and how burden may be minimized., Competing Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: LFvdW received research funding from the Dutch Cancer Society. DWB–vdH received research funding from ZonMw. HWMvL received research funding and/or medication supply from Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Incyte, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Philips, Roche, and Servier; has a consultant or advisory role at Amphera, AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, Daiichy-Sankyo, Dragonfly, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, and Servier; and has a speaker role at Astellas, Benecke, Daiichy-Sankyo, JAAP, Medtalks, Novartis, and Travel Congress Management BV. FYFdV received research funding from Foundation STOPbraintumors.org, BMS, Novartis, and EORTC Sponsor drive clinical research; participates on the advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb; and servers on the other following boards and committees: faculty member, ESMO CNS tumors, quality of care commission of the Dutch Society of Medical Oncology, and quality assurance commission of EORTC. IH received research funding from the Dutch Cancer Society. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support for this study was provided entirely by grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (DCS-UVA 2013-5949, UVA 2014-7000) and ZonMw (844001514). The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Dutch Cancer Society, LFvdW; ZonMw, DWB–vdH.

Purpose: To measure the prevalence and characteristics of distress and hope for the future among psycho-oncologists, who faced the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emergency along with other healthcare workers., Methods: A web-based study was conducted among members of the Italian Society of Psycho-Oncology between May 29 and June 5, 2020., Results: A total of 237 members, aged 28-72 years, completed the COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI), Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and HOPE questionnaires; 86.92% were female, 58.65% worked in hospitals, 21.10% were exposed to COVID-19, 11.39% experienced peritraumatic distress, and 3.38% had posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Peritraumatic distress was associated with living alone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-8.13), using sleep remedies (AOR 3.79; 95% CI 1.41-10.21), and the perception of being avoided by family or friends because of work (AOR 2.69; 95% CI 1.02-7.11); high HOPE-Agency scores were associated with the absence of peritraumatic stress (AOR 0.40; 95% CI 0.16-0.96) after adjustment for age and sex., Conclusions: Psycho-oncologists showed greater resilience than other healthcare workers as they are trained to help others, but also to review their own values and behavior in light of stressful events. Of interest is the association between peritraumatic distress and social isolation, real or perceived. Healthcare institutions should pay attention to the mental well-being of their employees by promoting distress screening using simple tools such as the CPDI and implementing support interventions. Psycho-oncology associations should introduce policies aimed at developing a sense of social connectedness by providing an interactive system of orientation and scientific reference.

The aim of this qualitative study based on a Social Representations approach was to explore experienced oncologists' representations of difficult decision-making situations. In total, 22 semi-structured interviews with oncologists were conducted and analysed by performing a thematic content analysis. The thematic content analysis brought to light the main medical problem involved such as uncertainty, the lethal nature of cancer and physicians' specialties, as well as the psychosocial ones, such as patients' non-medical characteristics and the patient-physician relationships. This analysis also showed the painful tensions experienced by specialists in the context of decision-making situations when the medical arguments conflict with the psychosocial ones. These findings suggest that in order to understand more clearly the complex processes involved in difficult medical decision-making situations, studies on physicians' expertise should include the socio-affective climate involved in each patient-physician relationship.

Introduction: Biosimilar drugs have significantly shaken the global pharmaceutical market through a better access to the health care services. The aim of this study is to establish a state of play in Tunisia based on the knowledge and perceptions of doctors on biosimilars in order to identify the problems related to these drugs and to propose solutions for improvement., Materials and Methods: In our study, we conducted a prospective, descriptive survey using a questionnaire, destinated to oncologists and hematologists with different grades, from both public and private sectors and from several regions. The questions focused on physicians' general knowledge of biosimilars and their comparison with reference on safety, quality, efficacy, and indication. Finally, we explored the proportion of physicians who are favorable to the policy encouraging biosimilar use., Results: One hundred and seven doctors among 150 answered the questionnaire; 57% were oncologists and 43% were hematologists. About one over five physicians defines biosimilar as a chemical drug. About 29% do not differentiate between a biosimilar and a generic one. A percentage of 68 believe that a biosimilar can have all the indications of its reference following complementary clinical studies. On the other side, 68.2% support the policy encouraging these drugs. Last, only 3.7% of the practitioners believe that they are well informed about biosimilars., Discussion: Our results are comparable to other surveys described in the literature. However, this is the first study that targets oncologists and hematologists specifically., Conclusion: Our study showed a lack of information from oncologists and hematologists about biosimilars in Tunisia. Thus, health authorities should carry out training programs on biosimilars and introduce clear and effective legislation in order to allow better access to health care services.

Background . Adjuvant systemic treatment for early stage breast cancer significantly reduces the risk of mortality but is associated with side effects, reducing patients' quality of life. Decisions about adjuvant treatment are preference sensitive and are thus ideally suited to a shared decision making (SDM) approach. Whether and how SDM affects patients' trust in their oncologist is currently unknown. We investigated the association between patients' trust in their oncologist and 1) observed level of SDM in the consultation, 2) congruence between patients' preferred and perceived level of participation, and 3) patient and oncologist characteristics. Methods . Decision consultations ( n = 101) between breast cancer patients and their medical oncologist were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Patients' trust in their oncologist was measured using the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS). The observed level of SDM was scored using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement In Decision Making scale (OPTION-12), preferred level of participation with the Control Preferences Scale, and perceived level of participation with an open question in telephonic interviews. Results . The average TiOS score was high overall (mean [SD] = 4.1 [.56]; range, 2.6-5.0). Low levels of SDM were observed (mean [SD] = 16 [11.6]; range, 2-56). Neither observed nor perceived level of participation in SDM was associated with trust. Patients' preferred and perceived role in decision making was incongruent in almost 50% of treatment decisions. Congruence was not related to trust. A larger tumor size (β = 4.5, P = 0.03) and the use of a risk prediction model during the consultation (β = 4.1, P = 0.04) were associated with stronger trust. Conclusion . Patients reported strong trust in their oncologist. While low levels of SDM were observed, SDM was not associated with trust. These findings suggest it may not be necessary to worry about negative consequences for trust of using SDM or risk prediction models in oncological consultations. Considering the increased emphasis on implementing SDM, it is important to further explore how SDM affects trust in clinical practice.

Background: Patients with cancer represent an important proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Oncologists and intensivists have distinct knowledge backgrounds, and conflicts about the appropriate management of these patients may emerge., Methods: We surveyed oncologists and intensivists at 2 academic cancer centers regarding their management of 2 hypothetical patients with different cancer types (metastatic pancreatic cancer and metastatic breast cancer with positive receptors for estrogen, progesterone, and HER-2) who develop septic shock and multiple organ failure., Results: Sixty intensivists and 46 oncologists responded to the survey. Oncologists and intensivists similarly favored withdrawal of life support measures for the patient with pancreatic cancer (33/46 [72%] vs 48/60 [80%], P = .45). On the other hand, intensivists favored more withdrawal of life support measures for the patient with breast cancer compared to oncologists (32/59 [54%] vs 9/44 [21%], P < .001). In the multinomial logistic regression, the oncology specialists were more likely to advocate for a full-code status for the patient with breast cancer (OR = 5.931; CI 95%, 1.762-19.956; P = .004)., Conclusions: Oncologists and intensivists share different views regarding life support measures in critically ill patients with cancer. Oncologists tend to focus on the cancer characteristics, whereas intensivists focus on multiple organ failure when weighing in on the same decisions. Regular meetings between oncologists and intensivists may reduce possible conflicts regarding the critical care of patients with cancer.

Background: Early integration of palliative care can improve outcomes for people with cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. However, prediction of survival for individuals is challenging, in particular in patients with haematological malignancies who are known to have limited access to palliative care. The 'Surprise'-Question can be used to facilitate referral to palliative care., Aim: To explore experiences, views and perceptions of haemato-oncologists on the use of the 'Surprise'-Question in the haemato-oncology outpatients clinics of a university hospital in Germany., Design: A qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically based on the framework approach., Setting/participants: The study took place at the haemato-oncology outpatient clinic and the bone marrow transplantation outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Nine haemato-oncologists participated in qualitative interviews., Results: Thematic analysis identified 4 themes and 11 subthemes: (1) meaning and relevance of the 'Surprise'-Question; (2) feasibility; (3) the concept of 'surprise' and (4) personal aspects of prognostication. A key function of the 'Surprise'-Question was to stimulate intuition and promote patient-centred goals of care by initiating a process of pause → reflection → change of perspective. It was easy and quick to use, but required time and communication skills to act on. Participants' training in palliative care enhanced their willingness to use the 'Surprise'-Question., Conclusion: Irrespective of its use in prognostication, the 'Surprise'-Question is a valuable tool to facilitate consideration of patient-centred goals and promote holistic care in haemato-oncology. However, prognostic uncertainty, lack of time and communication skills are barriers for integration into daily practice. Further research should involve haematology patients to integrate their needs and preferences.

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials and research studies can inform patient-clinician decision making. However, data presentation issues specific to PROs, such as scaling directionality (higher scores may represent better or worse outcomes) and scoring strategies (normed v. nonnormed scores), can make the interpretation of PRO scores uniquely challenging., Objective: To identify the association of PRO score directionality, score norming, and other factors on a) how accurately PRO scores are interpreted and b) how clearly they are rated by patients, clinicians, and PRO researchers., Methods: We electronically surveyed adult cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers and conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews with patients/survivors and clinicians. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 line graph formats showing longitudinal change: higher scores indicating "better," "more" (better for function, worse for symptoms), or "normed" to a population average. Quantitative data evaluated interpretation accuracy and clarity. Online survey comments and cognitive interviews were analyzed qualitatively., Results: The Internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed cognitive interviews. "Normed" line graphs were less accurately interpreted than "more" (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76; P = 0.04). "Better" line graphs were more accurately interpreted than both "more" (OR = 1.43; P = 0.01) and "normed" (OR = 1.88; P = 0.04). "Better" line graphs were more likely to be rated clear than "more" (OR = 1.51; P = 0.05). Qualitative data informed interpretation of these findings., Limitations: The survey relied on the online platforms used for distribution and consequent snowball sampling. We do not have information regarding participants' numeracy/graph literacy., Conclusions: For communicating PROs as line graphs in patient educational materials and decision aids, these results support using graphs, with higher scores consistently indicating better outcomes.

Purpose: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been widely used by cancer patients but rarely discussed by oncologists. This study was designed to evaluate the communication gap between China's oncologists and cancer patients on CAM., Methods: Two parallel cross-sectional studies assessed 83 oncologists and 402 cancer patients on CAM communication between patients and oncologists, and attitudes toward CAM use and clinical decisions about CAM., Results: A majority (75.1%) of the cancer patients (302/402) were identified as CAM users within the most recent three months while 77.6% of the cancer patients (312/402) were identified as CAM users since diagnosis of cancer. Oncologists and patients responded differently ( P < .001) on CAM communications. Both oncologists and patients expected that CAM could improve the immune system. They both agreed that oncologists usually discouraged their patients from using CAM. Regarding the effectiveness of CAM, cancer patients were more likely to believe that CAM was effective while oncologists had more concerns about adverse effects of CAM use. CAM use by patients was predicted by disease duration (≥9 months) in the multivariable logistic regression model., Conclusion: China's oncologists and cancer patients may hold discrepant views on CAM. China's oncologists are encouraged to improve their knowledge on CAM and to initiate more discussions with their patients regarding effective and the safe use of CAM.

Background: It is important to investigate attitudes to acupuncture, because therapists' and patients' expectations may affect the treatment outcome., Aim: To explore the use of and belief in acupuncture among oncological physiotherapists and to explore patients' interest in receiving acupuncture during cancer therapy and their belief in its effectiveness., Methods: 522 patients (80% female, mean age 67 years) reported on their interest in receiving acupuncture for nausea during radiotherapy treatment; a subgroup (n=198) additionally disclosed their belief in the effectiveness of acupuncture. 117 Swedish oncological physiotherapists (96% female, mean age 48 years) answered a questionnaire regarding their use of and belief in acupuncture., Results: Of the patients initiating cancer therapy, 359 (69%) were interested in receiving acupuncture. The patients believed acupuncture to be effective for pain (79%), nausea (79%) and vasomotor symptoms (48%). Of the 117 physiotherapists, 66 (56%) practised acupuncture. Physiotherapists generally believed in the effectiveness of acupuncture. For pain, 89% believed that acupuncture was effective and 42% of them practised it. Similar responses were noted for chemotherapy-induced nausea (86% and 38%, respectively) and vasomotor symptoms (80% and 28%, respectively). Younger physiotherapists and patients were more likely to believe in the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with older ones., Conclusions: More than two thirds of patients with cancer were interested in receiving acupuncture during therapy. Patients and oncological physiotherapists believed that acupuncture was effective for cancer pain, nausea and vasomotor symptoms. Further studies of acupuncture for cancer-related symptoms and of the effect of patients' and clinicians' therapeutic relationships, including treatment expectations, would be welcome., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: The past decades have seen advances in cancer treatments in terms of toxicity and side effects but progress in the treatment of advanced cancer has been modest. New drugs have emerged improving progression free survival but with little impact on overall survival, raising questions about the criteria on which to base decisions to grant marketing authorizations and about the authorization procedure itself. For decisions to be fair, transparent and accountable, it is necessary to consider the views of those with relevant expertise and experience., Methods: We conducted a Q-study to explore the views of a range of stakeholders in France, involving: 54 patients (18 months after diagnosis); 50 members of the general population; 27 oncologists; 19 healthcare decision makers; and 2 individuals from the pharmaceutical industry., Results: Three viewpoints emerged, focussing on different dimensions entitled: 1) 'Quality of life (QoL), opportunity cost and participative democracy'; 2)'QoL and patient-centeredness'; and 3) 'Length of life'. Respondents from all groups were associated with each viewpoint, except for healthcare decision makers, who were only associated with the first one., Conclusion: Our results highlight plurality in the views of stakeholders, emphasize the need for transparency in decision making processes, and illustrate the importance of a re-evaluation of treatments for all 3 viewpoints. In the context of advanced cancer, our results suggest that QoL should be more prominent amongst authorization criteria, as it is a concern for 2 of the 3 viewpoints.