Mismatch between Pediatric Oncologists' Private and Parent-Facing Prognostic Communication: Communication Patterns Used to Soften Prognostic Disclosure.

Purpose: Most parents of children with cancer desire honest prognostic communication, yet oncologists often avoid clear prognostic disclosure. This study explored differences between oncologists' private assessments of prognosis and their prognostic communication with patients and parents. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, we audio-recorded serial disease reevaluation conversations between children with advancing cancer, parents, and primary oncologists and separately surveyed and interviewed oncologists at disease progression time points. At time points when oncologists privately described curability as ≤10%, content analysis was used to compare prognostic language in recorded dialogue with private responses about prognosis. Results: Of 33 enrolled patient-parent dyads, 17 patients with high-risk cancer under the care of 6 primary oncologists experienced disease progression during the study period. In 95% of oncologist interviews at disease progression time points, oncologists either predicted curability to be ≤10% or incurable. In most interviews (82%), oncologists stated unequivocally that chances of cure were ≤10%, yet did not communicate these low odds during recorded discussions at the same time point. Analysis revealed three distinct communication patterns through which oncologists softened prognostic disclosure to patients and families: (1) space-holding for hope of cure: statements acknowledging difficult prognosis yet leaving room for possibility of cure; (2) vague warning: statements implying that cancer may progress without offering specifics; and (3) data without interpretation: statements describing disease progression findings in detail without explaining what this meant for the patient's future life or survival. Conclusion: Pediatric oncologists often temper their assessment of poor prognosis when speaking with patients and families. Future work should explore serious conversation guides and other clinical interventions aimed at encouraging person-centered prognostic disclosure for patients with advancing cancer and their families.

Oncologist approaches to communicating uncertain disease status in pediatric cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with cancer and their caregivers desire honest, clear prognostic communication, yet oncologists often disclose prognosis inconsistently. Prognostic communication becomes even more challenging when disease progression is unclear or equivocal. Presently, oncologist approaches for discussing uncertain disease findings are poorly understood. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal study, we audio-recorded serial disease reevaluation conversations between children with high-risk cancer, their families, and their primary oncologists over 24 months and conducted content analysis at recorded timepoints when oncologists categorized disease progression as equivocal. RESULTS: Of the 265 medical discussions recorded across the illness course for 33 patient-parent dyads, a total of 40 recorded discussions took place at equivocal timepoints, comprising > 500 min of medical dialogue. Prognosis talk encompassed < 3% of dialogue and was absent in nearly half of equivocal discussions (17/40, 42.5%). Curability statements were identified in only two conversations. Inductive content analysis of dialogue revealed four distinct patterns for communicating equivocal disease status: (1) up-front reassurance, (2) softening the message, (3) describing possible disease progression without interpretation, (4) expressing uncertainty without discussing the bigger picture. CONCLUSION: Oncologists rarely discuss prognosis with children with high-risk cancer and their families at timepoints when disease progression is not definitive. Formal guidance is needed to better support oncologists in navigating uncertainty while sharing honest, person- and family-centered information about prognosis.

Changes in body mass index, weight, and height in children with acute myeloid leukemia and the associations with outcome.

Little is known about body composition changes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) during and after treatment or their associations with outcomes. Z-scores for body mass index (BMI), weight, and height at diagnosis, their longitudinal changes from diagnosis to 5 years off therapy, and their associations with adverse effects and outcomes were evaluated in 227 pediatric patients with AML enrolled in the AML02 and AML08 trials at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital between 2002-2017. The median Z-scores for baseline weight, height, and BMI were 0.193, 0.209, and 0.170, respectively, and those for weight and height decreased significantly during therapy to -0.038 and -0.163, respectively, at off-therapy (P < .001 for both). At 5 years off therapy, the Z-scores for weight and BMI had increased significantly to 0.492 (P = .003) and 0.911 (P < .001), respectively, whereas the height Z-score remained significantly lower at -0.066 (P < .001) compared with baseline. The height Z-score of transplant recipients decreased further from -0.211 at transplant to -0.617 12 months later (P < .001). Baseline BMI category and Z-score were not associated with outcomes, but higher weight Z-scores were associated with lower incidences of refractory or relapsed disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.99) and higher incidences of death in remission (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). Furthermore, weight Z-score decrease during induction therapy was associated with gastrointestinal, hepatic, and infection toxicities during subsequent therapy and with death in remission (HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.11-6.45). Multidisciplinary monitoring for weight changes and short stature is required from diagnosis to the off-therapy period.

Prognostic Communication Between Oncologists and Parents of Children With Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Parents of children with cancer perceive deficits in quality of prognostic communication. How oncologists disclose information about disease progression and incurability and how prognostic communication impacts parental understanding of prognosis are poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to (1) characterize communication strategies used by pediatric oncologists to share prognostic information across a child's advancing illness course and (2) explore relationships between different communication approaches and concordance of oncologist-parent prognostic understanding. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, serial disease reevaluation conversations were audio recorded across an advancing illness course for children with cancer and their families. Surveys and interviews also were conducted with oncologists and caregivers at specific time points targeting disease progression. RESULTS: Seventeen children experienced advancing illness on study, resulting in 141 recordings (40 hours). Fewer than 4% of recorded dialogue constituted prognostic communication, with most codes (77%) occurring during discussions about frank disease progression. Most recordings at study entry contained little or no prognosis communication dialogue, and oncologists rated curability lower than parents across all dyads. Parent-oncologist discordance typically was preceded by conversations without incurability statements; ultimately, concordance was achieved in most cases after the oncologist made direct statements about incurability. Content analysis revealed 3 distinct patterns (absent, deferred, and seed planting) describing the provision of prognostic communication across an advancing pediatric cancer course. CONCLUSIONS: When oncologists provided direct statements about incurability, prognostic understanding appeared to improve. Further research is needed to determine optimal timing for prognostic disclosure in alignment with patient and family preferences.