Does Use of Information Sources Outside the Treating Oncologist Influence Patient Decision-Making in Patients Receiving Non-Curative Intent Therapy for Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients' decision-making and perceptions of outcomes may be impacted by information sources. We investigated use of information by patients and tested the association with patients' perception of treatment outcomes. METHODS: We prospectively surveyed patients with advanced solid cancers and their oncologists regarding benefits/risks of non-curative cancer therapies. We previously reported misperception comparing patients' perceptions of treatment outcomes to those of their oncologist. We report external information use as proportions with binomial confidence intervals (CI) and examined correlations with misperception levels using Spearman's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of 125 participants, 70% (95% CI: 61-78) stated that they wanted as much information as possible from their oncologist, and nearly all (95%, 95% CI: 90-98) felt the amount of information provided by their clinician was "just right." Over half (60%, 95% CI: 51-69) wanted at least "a moderate amount" of information from sources outside their oncologist, and 58% (95% CI: 49-67) reported obtaining information from sources outside their oncologist. Over two-thirds (69%, 95% CI: 57-79) of participants felt the information from external sources influenced their decisions "a small amount" or less. There was no correlation between information use and misperception regarding tumor response (r: -.04; P = .60) or treatment toxicity (r: .05; P = .60). CONCLUSION: Many patients sought information from sources outside their oncologist; few felt it substantially influenced treatment choices. External information use was not associated with greater misperception of treatment outcomes. These data suggest sources of information outside the treating oncologists did not substantially influence patient's decision making.

Patient Perceptions of Treatment Benefit and Toxicity in Advanced Cancer: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Prior studies show that many patients receiving palliative cancer therapies misperceive likelihood of cure. Patients' understanding of treatment benefits and risks beyond cure is unknown. We explore patient perceptions of palliative treatment in the novel therapeutic era. METHODS: We surveyed patients with advanced solid cancers and their oncologists regarding benefits and risks of palliative therapies. We assessed perceived likelihood of tumor response, survival benefit, symptom palliation, and side effects. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate least squares means of misperception (patient-assessed minus physician-assessed likelihood of benefit), accounting for clustering by physician, and compared the degree of misperception by participant characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 119 patients enrolled, median age was 65 years (range, 59-73 years), 55% were male, and 56% had prior treatment. Treatments included chemotherapy (60%), immunotherapy (24%), and targeted therapy (15%). Compared with their oncologists, patients overestimate curability (median misperception, 20%; interquartile range [IQR], 0 to 60), chances of tumor response (median, 20%; IQR, 0 to 40), symptom palliation (median, 10%; IQR, -10 to 30), and survival benefit (median, 20%; IQR, 0 to 40). Toxicity was relatively accurately estimated (median, 0.5%; IQR, -20 to 20). Immunotherapy was associated with higher risk of misperception of tumor response and toxicity. Misperceptions of tumor response and curability did not correlate (r = 0.13, P = .15). CONCLUSION: Compared with their oncologists, patients overestimated chances of tumor response, symptom palliation, and survival benefit, but accurately perceived likelihood of toxicity. There was no strong correlation between perception of curability and other goals of therapy. Communication focused on treatment goals alongside risks may reduce misperceptions and facilitate informed choices by patients.