Let us talk about death: gender effects in cancer patients' preferences for end-of-life discussions.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer often receive suboptimal end-of-life (EOL) care. Particularly males with advanced cancer are more likely to receive EOL care that is more aggressive, even if death is imminent. Critical factors determining EOL care are EOL conversations or advance care planning. However, information about gender-related factors influencing EOL conversations is lacking. Therefore, the current study investigates gender differences concerning the content, the desired time point, and the mode of initiation of EOL conversations in cancer patients. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 186 female and male cancer patients were asked about their preferences for EOL discussions using a semi-structured interview, focusing on (a) the importance of six different topics (medical and nursing care, organizational, emotional, social, and spiritual/religious aspects), (b) the desired time point, and (c) the mode of discussion initiation. RESULTS: The importance of EOL topics differs significantly regarding issue (p = 0.002, η2 = 0.02) and gender (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.11). Males wish to avoid the engagement in discussions about death and dying particularly if they are anxious about their end-of-life period. They wish to be addressed regarding the "hard facts" nursing and medical care only. In contrast, females prefer to speak more about "soft facts" and to be addressed about each EOL topic. Independent of gender, the majority of patients prefer to talk rather late: when the disease is getting worse (58%), at the end of their therapy, or when loosing self-sufficiency (27.5%). CONCLUSION: The tendency of patients to talk late about EOL issues increases the risk of delayed or missed EOL conversations, which may be due to a knowledge gap regarding the possibility of disease-associated incapability. Furthermore, there are significant gender differences influencing the access to EOL conversations. Therefore, for daily clinical routine, we suggest an early two-step, gender-sensitive approach to end-of-life conversations.

Is it best to expect the worst? Influence of patients' side-effect expectations on endocrine treatment outcome in a 2-year prospective clinical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine the role of patient expectations as potentially modifiable factor of side-effects, quality of life, and adherence to endocrine treatment of breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 2-year prospective clinical cohort study was conducted in routine primary care with postoperative patients with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, scheduled to start adjuvant endocrine treatment. Structured patient-reported assessments of side-effects, side-effect expectations, quality of life, and adherence took place during the first week post-surgery and after 3 and 24 months of endocrine treatment. RESULTS: Of 111 enrolled patients, at 3 and 24 months, 107 and 88 patients, respectively, were assessed. After 2 years of endocrine treatment, patients reported high rates of side-effects (arthralgia: 71.3%, weight gain: 53.4%, hot flashes: 46.5%), including symptoms not directly attributable to the medication (breathing problems: 28.1%, dizziness: 25.6%). Pre-treatment expectations significantly predicted patient-reported long-term side-effects and quality of life in multivariate models controlling for relevant medical and psychological variables. Relative risk of side-effects after 2 years of endocrine treatment was higher in patients with high negative expectations at baseline than in those with low negative expectations (RR = 1.833, CI 95%, 1.032-3.256). A significant interaction confirmed this expectation effect to be particularly evident in patients with high side-effects at 3 months. Furthermore, baseline expectations were associated with adherence at 24 months (r = -0.25, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Expectations are a genuine factor of clinical outcome from endocrine treatment for breast cancer. Negative expectations increase the risk of treatment-specific side-effects, nocebo side-effects, and non-adherence. Yet, controlled studies are needed to analyze potential causal relationships. Optimizing individual expectations might be a promising strategy to improve side-effect burden, quality of life, and adherence during longer-term drug intake. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02088710.