Prevalence and Tolerance of Prognostic Uncertainty Among Thoracic Oncologists.

We undertook a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of thoracic oncologists from the American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical directory to characterize whether prognostic uncertainty has increased and if tolerance of uncertainty is associated with prognostic discussion practices. We also assessed the Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty Scale and presented a vignette about an incurable patient with uncertain life expectancy. One hundred and ninety-two of 438 surveys (43.8%) were received. Of the respondents, 52.1% agreed "there is more prognostic uncertainty in the management of lung cancer now than 10 years ago," and 37.4% noted difficulty "staying up-to-date." In multivariable analyses, physician-reported anxiety about uncertainty (p = .05) and reluctance to disclose uncertainty (p = .04) were inversely associated with reporting having prognostic discussions with most patients. For the vignette, 92.1% reported they would discuss incurability, but only 76.3% said they would discuss the patient's life expectancy. Our data suggest prognostic uncertainty has increased in thoracic oncology and oncologists' tolerance of uncertainty may affect discussion practices.

How Do Blood Cancer Doctors Discuss Prognosis? Findings from a National Survey of Hematologic Oncologists.

Background: Although blood cancers are accompanied by a high level of prognostic uncertainty, little is known about when and how hematologic oncologists discuss prognosis. Objectives: Characterize reported practices and predictors of prognostic discussions for a cohort of hematologic oncologists. Design: Cross-sectional mailed survey in 2015. Setting/Subjects: U.S.-based hematologic oncologists providing clinical care for adult patients with blood cancers. Measurements: We conducted univariable and multivariable analyses assessing the association of clinician characteristics with reported frequency of initiation of prognostic discussions, type of terminology used, and whether prognosis is readdressed. Results: We received 349 surveys (response rate = 57.3%). The majority of respondents (60.3%) reported conducting prognostic discussions with "most" (>95%) of their patients. More than half (56.8%) preferred general/qualitative rather than specific/numeric terms when discussing prognosis. Although 91.3% reported that they typically first initiate prognostic discussions at diagnosis, 17.7% reported routinely never readdressing prognosis or waiting until death is imminent to revisit the topic. Hematologic oncologists with ≤15 years since medical school graduation (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; confidence interval (95% CI) 0.30-0.88) and those who considered prognostic uncertainty a barrier to quality end-of-life care (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35-0.90) had significantly lower odds of discussing prognosis with "most" patients. Conclusions: Although the majority of hematologic oncologists reported discussing prognosis with their patients, most prefer general/qualitative terms. Moreover, even though prognosis evolves during the disease course, nearly one in five reported never readdressing prognosis or only doing so near death. These findings suggest the need for structured interventions to improve prognostic communication for patients with blood cancers.

Impact of lenalidomide use among non-transfusion dependent patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Chemotherapies approved for defined subgroups promise personalized oncologic care, but their off-label impact is unclear. Lenalidomide is approved for lower-risk, transfusion-dependent (TD) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with del(5q), but frequently used in MDS outside this indication. We characterized lenalidomide use and outcomes among non-TD patients with MDS. Patients 65 or older diagnosed with MDS between 2007 and 2013 were identified using SEER; linked Medicare claims were evaluated for transfusions, lenalidomide use, and incident toxicities. TD was ≥2 transfusion episodes within an 8-week period; responses were transfusion independence (TI) and ≥50% transfusion reduction (minor response). We compared overall survival for non-TD patients receiving lenalidomide versus those not receiving lenalidomide, matched on disease and patient characteristics. We identified 676 patients who had received lenalidomide, including 275 (40.7%) TD and 401 (59.3%) non-TD; 18.5% (125/676) had zero claims for RBC transfusion prior to receiving lenalidomide. Incident toxicities among patients prescribed lenalidomide were similar in TD and non-TD groups, except incident thromboembolic events were higher among non-TD patients (10.8% vs. 6.0%, P = .04). Comparing 191 non-TD patients receiving lenalidomide within 6 months of MDS diagnosis to risk-matched MDS controls, lenalidomide was not associated with improved OS (P = .78). Among TD patients (n = 275), 31% achieved TI, and 30% achieved minor hematologic response, with a median time to TI of 4.1 weeks. In conclusion, we confirmed the benefit of lenalidomide among TD patients with MDS; however, many non-TD patients also received lenalidomide. These patients experienced accompanying toxicity without evidence of benefit in terms of transfusion needs or overall survival.