Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review.

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard-of-care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow-up for patients with a positive test.

Prevalence and Predictors of Physician-Patient Discordance in Prognostic Perceptions in Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Discordance between physicians' and patients' prognostic perceptions in advanced cancer care threatens informed medical decision-making and end-of-life preparation, yet this phenomenon is poorly understood. We sought to: (1) describe the extent and direction of prognostic discordance, patients' prognostic information preferences in cases of prognostic discordance, and physicians' awareness of prognostic discordance; and (2) examine which patient, physician, and caregiver factors predict prognostic discordance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncologists and advanced cancer patients (median survival ≤12 months; n = 515) from 7 Dutch hospitals completed structured surveys in a cross-sectional study. Prognostic discordance was operationalized by comparing physicians' and patients' perceptions of the likelihood of cure, 2-year mortality risk, and 1-year mortality risk. RESULTS: Prognostic discordance occurred in 20% (likelihood of cure), 24%, and 35% (2-year and 1-year mortality risk) of physician-patient dyads, most often involving patients with more optimistic perceptions than their physician. Among patients demonstrating prognostic discordance, the proportion who preferred not knowing prognosis varied from 7% (likelihood of cure) to 37% (1-year mortality risk), and 45% (2-year mortality risk). Agreement between physician-perceived and observed prognostic discordance or concordance was poor (kappa = 0.186). Prognostic discordance was associated with several patient factors (stronger fighting spirit, self-reported absence of prognostic discussions, an information source other than the healthcare provider), and greater physician-reported uncertainty about prognosis. CONCLUSION: Up to one-third of the patients perceive prognosis discordantly from their physician, among whom a substantial proportion prefers not knowing prognosis. Most physicians lack awareness of prognostic discordance, raising the need to explore patients' prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and to tailor prognostic communication.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Perceptions and tolerance of uncertainty: relationship to trust in COVID-19 health information and vaccine hesitancy.

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the public to considerable scientific uncertainty, which may promote vaccine hesitancy among individuals with lower tolerance of uncertainty. In a national sample of US adults in May-June 2020, we examined how both perceptions of uncertainty about COVID-19 and trait-level differences in tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources (risk, ambiguity, and complexity) are related to vaccine hesitancy-related outcomes, including trust in COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines should undergo a longer testing period before being released to the public. Overall, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty were not associated with trust in information, vaccine intentions, or beliefs about vaccine testing. However, higher tolerance of risk was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated, and lower tolerance of ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated and preferring a longer period of vaccine testing. Critically, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty and trait-level tolerance for uncertainty also interacted as predicted, such that greater perceived COVID-19 uncertainty was more negatively associated with trust in COVID-19 information among individuals with lower tolerance for risk and ambiguity. Thus, although perceptions of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 may not reduce trust and vaccine hesitancy for all individuals, trait-level tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources may have both direct and moderating effects on these outcomes. These findings can inform public health communication or other interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Pilot Study of an Encounter Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.

Patient Perspectives on the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.

Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.

Impact of health literacy on shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines endorse shared decision making (SDM) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. The relationship between a patient's health literacy (HL) and SDM remains unclear. In the current study, the authors sought to identify the impact of HL on the rates of PSA screening and on the relationship between HL and SDM following the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against PSA screening. METHODS: Using data from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the authors examined PSA screening in the 13 states that administered the optional "Health Literacy" module. Men aged ≥50 years were examined. Complex samples multivariable logistic regression models were computed to assess the odds of undergoing PSA screening. The interactions between HL and SDM were also examined. RESULTS: A weighted sample of 12.249 million men with a rate of PSA screening of 33.4% were identified. Approximately one-third self-identified as having optimal HL. Rates of PSA screening were found to be highest amongst the highest HL group (42.2%). Being in this group was a significant predictor of undergoing PSA screening (odds ratio, 1.214; 95% confidence interval, 1.051-1.403). There was a significant interaction observed between HL and SDM (P for interaction, <.001) such that higher HL was associated with a lower likelihood of undergoing PSA screening when SDM was present. CONCLUSIONS: In the uncertain environment of multiple contradictory screening guidelines, men who reported higher levels of HL were found to have higher levels of screening. The authors demonstrated that increased HL may reduce the screening-promoting effect of SDM. These findings highlight the dynamic interplay between HL and SDM that should inform the creation and promulgation of SDM guidelines, specifically when considering patients with low HL.

National Recommendations against Prostate Specific Antigen Screening versus Statewide Medicaid Expansion Initiatives: A Battle of the Titans.

PURPOSE: Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act occurred almost concurrently with 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific antigen screening. Here the relative influence on prostate specific antigen screening rates by 2 concurrent and opposing system-level policy initiatives is investigated: improved access to care and change in clinical practice guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from years 2012 to 2018 were analyzed for trends in self-reported prostate specific antigen screening and insurance coverage. Subanalyses included state Medicaid expansion status and respondent federal poverty level. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors associated with prostate specific antigen screening. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018 prostate specific antigen screening predominantly declined with a notable exception of an increase of 7.3% for men at <138% federal poverty level between 2011 and 2013 in early expansion states. Initial increases did not continue, and screening trends mirrored those of nonexpansion states by 2018. Notably, 2014 planned expansions states did not follow this trend with minimal change between 2015 and 2017 compared to declines in early expansion states and nonexpansion states (-0.4% vs -6.7% and -8.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with increased rates of insured men at <138% federal poverty level from 2012 to 2018 in early expansion states. In this group, initial increases in prostate specific antigen screening were not durable and followed the trend of reduced screening seen across the United States. In planned expansions states the global drop in prostate specific antigen screening from 2016 to 2018 was offset in men at <138% federal poverty level by expanding access to care. Nonexpansion states showed a steady decline in prostate specific antigen screening rates. This suggests that policy such as U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening competes with and often outmatches access to care.

How Well Does the Surprise Question Predict 1-year Mortality for Patients Admitted with COPD?

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often receive burdensome care at end-of-life (EOL) and infrequently complete advance care planning (ACP). The surprise question (SQ) is a prognostic tool that may facilitate ACP. OBJECTIVE: To assess how well the SQ predicts mortality and prompts ACP for COPD patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of COPD between July 2015 and September 2018. MAIN MEASURES: Emergency department (ED) and inpatient clinicians answered, "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 30 days (ED)/one year (inpatient)?" The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of the SQ in predicting 30-day and 1-year mortality. The secondary outcome was the correlation between SQ and ACP (palliative care consultation, documented goals-of-care conversation, change in code status, or completion of ACP document). KEY RESULTS: The 30-day SQ had a high specificity but low sensitivity for predicting 30-day mortality: sensitivity 12%, specificity 95%, PPV 11%, and NPV 96%. The 1-year SQ demonstrated better accuracy for predicting 1-year mortality: sensitivity 47%, specificity 75%, PPV 35%, and NPV 83%. After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, and prior 6-month admissions, 1-year SQ+ responses were associated with greater odds of 1-year mortality (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.39-4.08) versus SQ-. One-year SQ+ patients were more likely to have a goals-of-care conversation (25% vs. 11%, p < 0.01) and complete an advance directive or POLST (46% vs. 23%, p < 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, SQ+ responses to the 1-year SQ were associated with greater odds of ACP receipt (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.64-4.36). CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year surprise question may be an effective component of prognostication and advance care planning for COPD patients in the inpatient setting.

Community oncologists' perceptions and utilization of large-panel genomic tumor testing.

PURPOSE: Large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT) is an emerging technology with great promise but uncertain clinical value. Previous research has documented variability in academic oncologists' perceptions and use of GTT, but little is known about community oncologists' perceptions of GTT and how perceptions relate to clinicians' intentions to use GTT. METHODS: Community oncology physicians (N = 58) participating in a statewide initiative aimed at improving access to large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their confidence in using GTT, attitudes regarding the value of GTT, perceptions of barriers to GTT implementation, and future intentions to use GTTs. Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to characterize these perceptions and to explore the relationships between them. RESULTS: There was substantial variability in clinicians' perceptions of GTT. Clinicians generally had moderate confidence in their ability to use GTT, but lower confidence in patients' ability to understand test results and access targeted treatment. Clinicians had positive attitudes regarding the value of GTT. Clinicians' future intentions to use GTT were associated with greater confidence in using GTT and greater perceived barriers to implementing GTT, but not with attitudes about the value of GTT. CONCLUSIONS: Community oncologists' perceptions of large-panel genomic tumor testing are variable, and their future intentions to use GTT are associated with both their confidence in and perceived barriers to its use, but not with their attitudes towards GTT. More research is needed to understand other factors that determine how oncologists perceive and use GTT in clinical practice.

A scoping review of practice recommendations for clinicians' communication of uncertainty.

BACKGROUND: Health-care providers increasingly have to discuss uncertainty with patients. Awareness of uncertainty can affect patients variably, depending on how it is communicated. To date, no overview existed for health-care professionals on how to discuss uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: To generate an overview of available recommendations on how to communicate uncertainty with patients during clinical encounters. SEARCH STRATEGY: A scoping review was conducted. Four databases were searched following the PRISMA-ScR statement. Independent screening by two researchers was performed of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full texts. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any (non-)empirical papers were included describing recommendations for any health-care provider on how to orally communicate uncertainty to patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on provided recommendations and their characteristics (eg, target group and strength of evidence base) were extracted. Recommendations were narratively synthesized into a comprehensible overview for clinical practice. RESULTS: Forty-seven publications were included. Recommendations were based on empirical findings in 23 publications. After narrative synthesis, 13 recommendations emerged pertaining to three overarching goals: (a) preparing for the discussion of uncertainty, (b) informing patients about uncertainty and (c) helping patients deal with uncertainty. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A variety of recommendations on how to orally communicate uncertainty are available, but most lack an evidence base. More substantial research is needed to assess the effects of the suggested communicative approaches. Until then, health-care providers may use our overview of communication strategies as a toolbox to optimize communication about uncertainty with patients. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Results were presented to stakeholders (physicians) to check and improve their practical applicability.

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty About the COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Experimental Study of an Uncertainty-Normalizing Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion-a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether an "uncertainty-normalizing" communication strategy-aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic-can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. METHODS: In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. RESULTS: The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

The influence of uncertainty and uncertainty tolerance on attitudes and self-efficacy about genomic tumor testing.

Novel medical technologies, like large-panel genomic tumor testing (GTT), offer great promise but also substantial uncertainty regarding their clinical value and appropriate use. The goal of this study was to understand how clinicians' perceived uncertainty about GTT, and uncertainty tolerance (UT), a construct that describes trait-level differences in individuals' responses to uncertainty, influence attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Community-based oncologists participating in a study of large-panel GTT completed surveys assessing their perceptions of uncertainty about GTT, and their attitudes and self-efficacy regarding GTT. Multivariable regression analyses examined the relationship between oncologists' perceived uncertainty of GTT and their GTT-related attitudes and self-efficacy, and the potential moderating effect of individual differences in UT. Fifty-seven oncologists completed surveys. Greater perceived uncertainty about GTT was associated with more negative attitudes towards it. This association was moderated by UT, such that lower UT was associated with a stronger negative relationship between perceived uncertainty and attitudes. That is, oncologists who perceive GTT as uncertain, tended to have more negative attitudes, particularly if they were low in the trait of uncertainty tolerance. More research is warranted to understand how uncertainty and uncertainty tolerance influence clinicians' responses to GTT and other novel medical interventions.

Receipt of Survivorship Care Plans and Self-Reported Health Status among Patients with Genitourinary Malignancy.

PURPOSE: Implementation of survivorship care plans has been emphasized as a key component to improving care for cancer survivors. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of survivorship care plan receipt for survivors of genitourinary malignancy including kidney, prostate and bladder cancer, and evaluate whether receipt was associated with a measurable health benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Cancer Survivorship modules in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017 were analyzed. The proportion of patients with bladder, kidney or prostate cancer receiving a survivorship care plan was calculated. Complex samples multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine the association of survivorship care plan receipt with sociodemographic variables, and assess the relationship between survivorship care plan receipt and self-reported health status (general, physical and mental). RESULTS: Survivorship care plan distribution increased from 27.5% in 2012 to 39.5% in 2017. Patients with low income, less formal education and extremes of age were less likely to receive a survivorship care plan. Those receiving a survivorship care plan were less likely to report poor physical health (OR 0.70, CI 0.52-0.96, p=0.026). Subanalysis showed a similar result for physical health of patients with prostate cancer (OR 0.68, CI 0.48-0.96, p=0.030) and general health of patients with kidney cancer (OR 0.37, CI 0.19-0.75, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of survivorship care plans to genitourinary malignancy survivors has increased since 2012 in response to advocacy from national organizations. Nonetheless, utilization is low and there is heterogeneity in the populations likely to receive a survivorship care plan. There is a measurable association between survivorship care plans and improved health status but further study is needed to determine causality.

The Effect of Prognostic Communication on Patient Outcomes in Palliative Cancer Care: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: While prognostic information is considered important for treatment decision-making, physicians struggle to communicate prognosis to advanced cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to offer up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on prognostic communication in palliative oncology. METHODS: PubMed and PsycInfo were searched until September 2019 for literature on the association between prognostic disclosure (strategies) and patient outcomes in palliative cancer care, and its moderators. Methodological quality was reported. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Concerning prognostic disclosure, results revealed a positive association with patients' prognostic awareness. Findings showed no or positive associations between prognostic disclosure and the physician-patient relationship or the discussion of care preferences. Evidence for an association with the documentation of care preferences or physical outcomes was lacking. Findings on the emotional consequences of prognostic disclosure were multifaceted. Concerning disclosure strategies, affective communication seemingly reduced patients' physiological arousal and improved perceived physician's support. Affective and explicit communication showed no or beneficial effects on patients' psychological well-being and satisfaction. Communicating multiple survival scenarios improved prognostic understanding. Physicians displaying expertise, positivity and collaboration fostered hope. Evidence on demographic, clinical and personality factors moderating the effect of prognostic communication was weak. CONCLUSION: If preferred by patients, physicians could disclose prognosis using sensible strategies. The combination of explicit and affective communication, multiple survival scenarios and expert, positive, collaborative behaviour likely benefits most patients. Still, more evidence is needed, and tailoring communication to individual patients is warranted. IMPLICATIONS: Future research should examine the effect of prognostic communication on psychological well-being over time and treatment decision-making, and focus on individualising care.

Knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits of an African, African-American, and Afro-Caribbean sequencing cohort and comparisons to the original ClinSeq® cohort.

PURPOSE: Racial minority populations are underrepresented in genomics research. This study enrolled African-descended individuals in a sequencing study and reported their characteristics. METHODS: We purposively recruited 467 individuals self-identified as African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean to the ClinSeq® study and surveyed them about knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits. Summary statistics were calculated and compared with data from the study's original cohort, which was primarily White and self-referred. RESULTS: Recruitment took five years and 83% of enrollees completed the survey. Participants had modest knowledge about benefits and limitations of sequencing (x̅s = 5.1, ranges: 0-10), and less than the original cohort (x̅ = 7.5 and 7.7, respectively). Common motivations to enroll were learning information relevant to personal health (49%) or family members' health (33%), and most had realistic expectations of sequencing. Like the original cohort, they had high levels of optimism, openness, and resilience. CONCLUSION: Early adopters may have relatively consistent personality traits irrespective of majority/minority status and recruitment methods, but high levels of genomics knowledge are not universal. Research should determine whether recruitment and consent procedures provide adequate education to promote informed choices and realistic expectations, which are vital to ethical research and increasing genomics research participation in underrepresented communities.

Prostate cancer navigation: initial experience and association with time to care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with use of patient navigation in a prostate cancer population and identify whether navigation is associated with prolonged time to care. Cancer patient navigation has been shown to improve access to cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment, but little is known about patient navigation in prostate cancer care. METHODS: All men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015 were abstracted from the MaineHealth multi-specialty tumor registry. Regression analyses controlling for patient-, disease-, and system-level factors evaluated characteristics associated with navigation utilization. The association between navigation utilization, barriers to care, and longer time to treatment was assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of the patient population (n = 1587), 85% of men were navigated. Navigation use was associated with earlier year of diagnosis, treatment by a high-volume urologist, and lower risk disease (p < 0.05). Treatment delay was associated with low-risk disease (vs: intermediate OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.85 and high OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.1-0.25) and receipt of navigation services (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12-2.45) but not distance to care, insurance, or treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that patients with low-risk prostate cancer were more likely to utilize navigation, but traditional barriers to care were not associated with utilization. Navigation was associated with longer time to treatment, which likely reflects clinically appropriate delays associated with greater shared decision making. Time to treatment may not be the ideal metric for evaluating navigation in prostate cancer; shared decision making, patient satisfaction, and psychosocial outcomes may be more appropriate.

Prostate Cancer Screening in Early Medicaid Expansion States.

PURPOSE: The PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) of 2010 included a provision to expand Medicaid by 2014. Six states and jurisdictions elected to expand Medicaid early before 2012. This provided a natural experiment to test the association between expanded insurance coverage and preventive service utilization, including prostate cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the 2012 and 2014 BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) surveys we identified men 40 to 64 years old who reported prostate specific antigen testing in the preceding 12 months. Sociodemographic and access to care variables were extracted. Income was stratified by the relationship to Medicaid eligibility and the federal poverty level (less than 138%, 138% to 400% and greater than 400%). The weighted prevalence of prostate specific antigen was estimated. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with prostate specific antigen screening. Interaction analysis for Medicaid expansion was performed. RESULTS: Among 158,103 respondents individuals in nonexpansion states had the highest incidence of prostate specific antigen screening. Nationally screening decreased between 2011 and 2013 (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.91). In only early expansion states there was a 3% absolute increase in screening among men in the less than 138% federal poverty level, which was associated with expansion status (pinteraction = 0.04). Increased screening in early expansion states was also seen in men who were 55 to 59 years old, nonHispanic African American, Hispanic, previously married, not high school graduates and current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2011 and 2013 there were national declines in prostate cancer screening. However, there was significant narrowing of the gap in prostate specific antigen screening between higher and low income men in Medicaid early expansion states. This may reflect improved access to preventive services among populations with historic barriers to care.

Communication of Scientific Uncertainty about a Novel Pandemic Health Threat: Ambiguity Aversion and Its Mechanisms.

Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats is ethically desirable but challenging due to its tendency to promote avoidance of choice options with unknown probabilities-a phenomenon known as "ambiguity aversion." This study examined this phenomenon's potential magnitude, its responses to different communication strategies, and its mechanisms. In a factorial experiment, 2701 adult laypersons in Spain read one of three versions of a hypothetical newspaper article describing a pandemic vaccine-preventable disease (VPD), but varying in scientific uncertainty about VPD risk and vaccine effectiveness: No-Uncertainty, Uncertainty, and Normalized-Uncertainty (emphasizing its expected nature). Vaccination intentions were lower for the Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups compared to the No-Uncertainty group, consistent with ambiguity aversion; Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups did not differ. Ambiguity-averse responses were moderated by health literacy and mediated by perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, VPD likelihood, and VPD severity. Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats warrants caution and further research to elucidate its outcomes, mechanisms, and management.