Can Oncologists Prompt Patient Prognostic Awareness to Enhance Decision-Making? Data From the NEOetic Study
Introduction: Anti-neoplastic therapy improves the prognosis for advanced cancer, albeit it is not curative. An ethical dilemma that often arises during patients’ first appointment with the oncologist is to give them only the prognostic information they can tolerate, even at the cost of compromising...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de la UB |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/209206 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/209206 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Oncologia Pronòstic mèdic Presa de decisions Malalts de càncer Aspectes psicològics Relacions metge-pacient Qualitat de vida Oncology Prognosis Decision making Cancer patients Psychological aspects Physician-patient relationships Quality of life |
| Sumario: | Introduction: Anti-neoplastic therapy improves the prognosis for advanced cancer, albeit it is not curative. An ethical dilemma that often arises during patients’ first appointment with the oncologist is to give them only the prognostic information they can tolerate, even at the cost of compromising preference-based decision-making, versus giving them full information to force prompt prognostic awareness, at the risk of causing psychological harm. Methods: We recruited 550 participants with advanced cancer. After the appointment, patients and clinicians completed several questionnaires about preferences, expectations, prognostic awareness, hope, psychological symptoms, and other treatment-related aspects. The aim was to characterize the prevalence, explanatory factors, and consequences of inaccurate prognostic awareness and interest in therapy. Results: Inaccurate prognostic awareness affected 74%, conditioned by the administration of vague information without alluding to death (odds ratio [OR] 2.54; 95% CI, 1.47-4.37, adjusted P = .006). A full 68% agreed to low-efficacy therapies. Ethical and psychological factors oriented firstline decision-making, in a trade-off in which some lose quality of life and mood, for others to gain autonomy. Imprecise prognostic awareness was associated with greater interest in low-efficacy treatments (OR 2.27; 95% CI, 1.31-3.84; adjusted P = .017), whereas realistic understanding increased anxiety (OR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.01-2.65; adjusted P = 0.038), depression (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.23-3.11; adjusted P = .020), and diminished quality of life (OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75; adjusted P = .011). Conclusion: In the age of immunotherapy and targeted therapies, many appear not to understand that antineoplastic therapy is not curative. Within the mix of inputs that comprise inaccurate prognostic awareness, many psychosocial factors are as relevant as the physicians’ disclosure of information. Thus, the desire for better decision-making can actually harm the patient. |
|---|