Treatment goals and changes over time in older patients with non-curable cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the treatment goals of older patients with non-curable cancer, whether those goals changed over time, and if so, what triggered those changes. METHODS: We performed a descriptive and qualitative analysis using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) to assess patient goals across four conversations with general practitioners (GPs) over 6 months. Text entries from electronic patient records (hospital and general practice) were then analyzed qualitatively for this period. RESULTS: Of the 29 included patients, 10 (34%) rated extending life and 9 (31%) rated maintaining independence as their most important goals. Patients in the last year before death (late phase) prioritized extending life less often (3 patients; 21%) than those in the early phase (7 patients; 47%). Goals changed for 16 patients during follow-up (12 in the late phase). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes that explained the baseline OPT scores (prioritizing a specific goal, rating a goal as unimportant, and treatment choices related to goals). Another three themes related to changes in OPT scores (symptoms, disease course, and life events) and stability of OPT scores (stable situation, disease-unrelated motivation, and stability despite symptoms). CONCLUSION: Patients most often prioritized extending life as the most important goal. However, priorities differed in the late phase of the disease, leading to changed goals. Triggers for change related to both the disease (e.g., symptoms and course) and to other life events. We therefore recommend that goals should be discussed repeatedly, especially near the end of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OPTion study: NTR5419.

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer: a Delphi consensus study.

INTRODUCTION: To provide optimal care for patients with cancer, timely and efficient communication between healthcare providers is essential. In this study, we aimed to achieve consensus regarding the desired content of communication between general practitioners (GPs) and oncology specialists before and during the initial treatment of cancer. METHODS: In a two-round Delphi procedure, three expert panels reviewed items recommended for inclusion on referral and specialist letters. RESULTS: The three panels comprised 39 GPs (42%), 42 oncology specialists (41%) (i.e. oncologists, radiotherapists, urologists and surgeons) and 18 patients or patient representatives (69%). Final agreement was by consensus, with 12 and 35 items included in the GP referral and the specialist letters, respectively. The key requirements of GP referral letters were that they should be limited to medical facts, a short summary of symptoms and abnormal findings, and the reason for referral. There was a similar requirement for letters from specialists to include these same medical facts, but detailed information was also required about the diagnosis, treatment options and chosen treatment. After two rounds, the overall content validity index (CVI) for both letters was 71%, indicating that a third round was not necessary. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to differentiate between essential and redundant information in GP referral and specialist letters, and the findings could be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care.

A systematic review of the psychological impact of false-positive colorectal cancer screening: What is the role of the general practitioner?

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has both advantages (e.g. reduction in morbidity and mortality) and disadvantages (e.g. false positives and distress). A systematic review was therefore performed to improve our understanding of how false-positive CRC screening results affect patients psychologically (and to make recommendations for primary care). The PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched in October 2014 and supplemented in December 2016 to identify studies on the psychological impact of false-positive CRC screening. Original studies were eligible when they assessed psychological impact in a screening setting, provided they also included false-positive CRC screening results. Two authors independently assessed 2,367 available manuscripts and included seven. Heterogeneity in their outcome measures meant that data could not be pooled. Two studies showed that a false-positive CRC screening result caused some moderate psychological distress shortly before and after colonoscopy. The remaining five studies illustrated that the psychological distress of patients with true-positive and false-positive CRC screening results was comparable. We conclude that a false-positive CRC screening result may cause some moderate psychological distress, especially just before or after colonoscopy. We recommend that general practitioners mention this when discussing CRC screening with patients and monitor those with a false-positive outcome for psychological distress.

Study protocol for the OPTion randomised controlled trial on the effect of prioritising treatment goals among older patients with cancer in a palliative setting.

PURPOSE: Traditionally, general practitioners (GPs) are not involved in cancer-related treatment decisions, despite their often long relationship with patients, and their unique position to explore patients' values, especially with older patients. Therefore, we designed a randomised controlled trial to study the effect, on self-efficacy related to treatment decisions, of a conversation about treatment goals between GPs and patients with cancer in a palliative setting. METHODS: We aim to include 168 patients aged ≥70 years with a diagnosis of non-curable cancer, due to consult their oncologist about treatment options. In the intervention group, patients will consult their GP using an Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT). The control group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome will be the score on a decision self-efficacy scale after the consultation with the oncologist. Secondary outcomes will be symptoms of depression, anxiety, or fatigue. In an embedded observational study of the intervention group, we aim to assess the prioritisation of treatment goals (i.e., OPT scores), and their determinants, over a six-month period. CONCLUSIONS: The OPTion study should provide relevant information about the effect on self-efficacy of a consultation between GPs and older patients with cancer, concerning preferred treatment goals in a palliative setting. Dutch Trial Register NTR5419.