Prognostic information (PI), psychological well-being, and quality of life for advanced cancer patients (ACP) in phase I trials and their spousal caregivers (SC).

Authors

null

Fay J. Hlubocky

The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL

Fay J. Hlubocky , David Cella , Tamara Sher , Bonnie Yap , Mark J. Ratain , Christopher Daugherty

Organizations

The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, Northwestern University Family Institute, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Research Funding

No funding sources reported

Background: The impact of the physician’s (MD) disclosure of PI on the psychological well-being and quality of life (QoL) of clinical trial subjects with terminal disease on Phase I trials has not been formally evaluated. Methods: A prospective cohort of ACP enrolling in phase I trials was assessed at baseline (T1) and one month (T2) utilizing various measures including: state-trait anxiety (STAI-S/T), depression (CES-D), quality of life/QoL (FACIT-Pal), and global health (SF-36). Semi-structured interviews of ACPs also evaluated MD-Pt communication re prognosis and worry about ACP death. Results: 100 subjects (50 Phase I ACPs and 50 SC) were separately interviewed at T1 and T2. For the population as a whole: median age 62 (28-78y); 51% male; 100% married; 88% Ca; 68% > HS educ; 56% GI dx; 54% income <$65,000 yr. At T1, 45% of ACPs acknowledged having a discussion re life expectancy with MD; 35% stated the MD gave a prognostic timeframe; and 41% reported worry re death. For SC at T1, 62% recalled a prognosis discussion with the MD; 50% stated MD gave a timeframe; 53% reported PI disclosure was initiated by the MD; 66% reported worry re ACP death. At T2, rates remained consistent for both ACP and SC with the exception of increased reported worry re ACP death at 55% and 70% respectively. At T2, ACP who denied a prognosis was given by the MD had higher STAI-S (35 ± 10 v 29 ± 9, p=0.03) and CES-D scores (16 ± 12 v 7 ± 4, p=0.01); and lower FACT-Pal scores (128 ± 18 v 153 ± 24, p=0.01). SC with acknowledgement of a prognostic timeframe given by the MD had higher STAI-S anxiety (39 ± 16 v 35 ± 14, p=0.04) at T2. Regression analyses revealed that ACP with acknowledgement of a prognostic timeframe given by the MD had poorer FACIT-Pal QoL over time. Also, SC with acknowledgement of a prognostic timeframe at T2 was negatively associated with SF-36 scores. ACP and SC qualitative responses re PI disclosure revealed salient themes: hope for a positive outcome or prolonged survival; stabilization of disease; emotional distress; ambivalence/fear; acceptance. Conclusions: Physician disclosure of a prognostic timeframe is negatively associated with QoL among clinical trial subjects and SC in phase I trials.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2013 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Discussion Session

Session Title

Patient and Survivor Care

Track

Patient and Survivor Care

Sub Track

End-of-Life Care

Citation

J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 9520)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.9520

Abstract #

9520

Poster Bd #

9

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Ronald Chow

Abstract

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Outcomes of a resilient living program for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers.

First Author: Deirdre R. Pachman