4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Cancer patient preferences for communication of prognosis in the metastatic setting

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 1721-1730

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.04.095

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To identify preferences for and predictors of prognostic information among patients with incurable metastatic cancer. Patients and Methods One hundred twenty-six metastatic cancer patients seeing 30 oncologists at 12 outpatient clinics in New South Wales, Australia, participated in the study. Patients were diagnosed with incurable metastatic disease within 6 weeks to 6 months of recruitment. Patients completed a survey eliciting their preferences for prognostic information, including type, quantity, mode, and timing of presentation; anxiety and depression levels; and information and involvement preferences. Results More than 95% of patients wanted information about side effects, symptoms, and treatment options. The majority wanted to know longest survival time with treatment (85%), 5-year survival rates (80%), and average survival (81%). Words and numbers were preferred over pie charts or graphs. Fifty-nine percent (59%) wanted to discuss expected survival when first diagnosed with metastatic disease. Thirty-eight percent and 44% wanted to negotiate when expected survival and dying, respectively, were discussed. Patients with higher depression scores were more likely to want to know shortest time to live without treatment (P = .047) and average survival (P = .049). Lower depression levels were significantly associated with never wanting to discuss expected survival (P = .03), Patients with an expected survival of years were more likely to want to discuss life expectancy when first diagnosed with metastases (P = .02). Conclusion Most metastatic cancer patients want detailed prognostic information but prefer to negotiate the extent, format, and timing of the information they receive from their oncologists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据