Prognostic Understanding and Goals of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: There is a paucity of data describing patients' expectations of goals of palliative radiotherapy (RT) and overall prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' perceptions of and preferences for communication surrounding goals of palliative RT and cancer prognosis. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews with seventeen patients with either bone or lung metastases receiving their first course of palliative RT at a comprehensive cancer center. All patient interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Themes of goals of palliative RT centered on either restoration, such as through improving quality of life or minimizing pain, or on a desire to combat cancer by eliminating tumor. While most patients perceived that palliative RT would palliate symptoms but not cure their cancer, some patients believed that the goal of palliative RT was to cure. Themes that emerged surrounding patients' understanding of prognosis and what lies ahead included uncertainty and apprehension about the future, a focus on additional treatment, and confronting mortality. Most patients preferred to receive information about goals of treatment and prognosis from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, rather than other members of the medical team. Patients also expressed a desire for written patient education materials on palliative RT. CONCLUSION: Unclear perceptions of goals of treatment and prognosis may motivate some patients to pursue unnecessarily aggressive cancer treatments. Patients desire prognostic information from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, who are important contributors to goals of care discussions and may improve patient understanding and well-being by using restorative rather than combat-oriented language.

Moderators of the association between stigma and psychological and cancer-related symptoms in women with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer patients, particularly women, are vulnerable to experience disease-related stigma, which is linked to greater psychological distress and worse treatment outcomes. To inform future stigma-resilience interventions, we examined if mindfulness, self-compassion, and social support might buffer the associations between perceived lung cancer stigma and psychological and cancer-related symptoms. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, women with recently diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer undergoing cancer treatment completed measures of Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale, depressive (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), stress (Impact of Events Scale) and cancer-related (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer) symptoms, mindfulness (Mindful Attention Awareness Scale), self-compassion (Self-Compassion Scale), and social support (Social Provisions Scale). RESULTS: The sample included 56 women (mean age = 65 years; 71% non-Hispanic White; 50% college educated; 74% advanced stage) who had consented to participate in an online support group study. Most (70%) had a smoking history and reported moderate levels of stigma (M = 36.28, SD = 10.51). Based on general linear modeling, mindfulness moderated the associations between stigma and depressive symptoms (F = 5.78, p = 0.02), cancer-related stress (F = 12.21, p = 0.002), and cancer-related symptom severity (F = 4.61, p = 0.04), such that, only for women scoring low in mindfulness, the associations between stigma and symptoms were significant. For those scoring high in mindfulness, the associations between stigma and symptoms were not significant supporting a buffering effect. Self-compassion and social support did not significantly moderate the stigma and symptom associations. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of mindfulness may protect women from psychological and cancer-related symptoms typically associated with the stigmatizing experience of a lung cancer diagnosis. Yet, longitudinal studies and randomized controlled designs are needed to identify mindfulness as a causal protective factor.

Patient, physician, and policy factors underlying variation in use of telemedicine for radiation oncology cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Oncology telemedicine was implemented rapidly after COVID-19. We examined multilevel correlates and outcomes of telemedicine use for patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer. METHODS: Upon implementation of a telemedicine platform at a comprehensive cancer center, we analyzed 468 consecutive patient RT courses from March 16, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients were categorized as using telemedicine during ≥1 weekly oncologist visits versus in-person oncologist management only. Temporal trends were evaluated with Cochran-Armitage tests; chi-squared test and multilevel multivariable logistic models identified correlates of use and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% used telemedicine versus 67% in-person only oncologist management. Temporal trends (ptrend  < 0.001) correlated with policy changes: uptake was rapid after local social-distancing restrictions, reaching peak use (35% of visits) within 4 weeks of implementation. Use declined to 15% after national "Opening Up America Again" guidelines. In the multilevel model, patients more likely to use telemedicine were White non-Hispanic versus Black or Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.72; p = 0.04) or receiving ≥6 fractions of RT versus 1-5 fractions (OR = 4.49, 95% CI 2.29-8.80; p < 0.001). Model intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated 43% utilization variation was physician-level driven. Treatment toxicities and 30-day emergency visits or unplanned hospitalizations did not differ for patients using versus not using telemedicine (p > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Though toxicities were similar with telemedicine oncology management, there remained lower uptake among non-White patients. Continuing strategies for oncology telemedicine implementation should address multilevel patient, physician, and policy factors to optimize telemedicine's potential to surmount-and not exacerbate-barriers to quality cancer care.

Patient-Provider Communication, Decision-Making, and Psychosocial Burdens in Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study on Patients' Perspectives.

CONTEXT: Patient-provider communication impacts how patients with cancer make decisions about treatment. OBJECTIVES: To examine patient perceptions of discussions, decision-making, and psychosocial burdens related to receiving palliative radiotherapy (RT), in order to inform best practices for communication about palliative RT. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using oral questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Seventeen patients receiving their first course of palliative RT for lung or bone metastases at a comprehensive cancer center were interviewed. Patient interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using NVivo software. RESULTS: Themes that impacted patients' decisions to initiate RT included a desire to minimize pain, optimism about what RT could provide for the future, perception of having "no other choice," disappointment about cancer progression, and unfamiliarity with RT. Most patients preferred shared decision-making regarding RT initiation and reported patient empowerment, effective communication, and team collaboration as contributing to shared decision-making. Most patients preferred their physicians to make decisions about RT treatment intensity and described trust in their physicians, institutional reputation, and RT expertise as motivators for this preference. Patients who possessed a proactive decisional mindset about initiating RT as opposed to having "no other choice" were less likely to report experiencing psychosocial burdens. CONCLUSION: Most patients prefer shared decision-making regarding RT initiation but prefer their radiation oncologists to make decisions regarding treatment intensity. Communication that empowers patients in their desired level of engagement for RT decision-making may help patients make informed decisions, contribute toward a proactive decisional mindset, and reduce their perception of psychosocial burdens.