Communication between physicians and older women with localized breast cancer: implications for treatment and patient satisfaction.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with patient-physician communication and to examine the impact of communication on patients' perception of having a treatment choice, actual treatment received, and satisfaction with care among older breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 613 pairs of surgeons and their older (greater-than-or-equal 67 years) patients diagnosed with localized breast cancer. Measures of patients' self-reported communication included physician- and patient-initiated communication and the number of treatment options discussed. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between communication and outcomes. RESULTS: Patients who reported that their surgeons mentioned more treatment options were 2.21 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62 to 3.01) more likely to report being given a treatment choice, and 1.33 times (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.73) more likely to get breast-conserving surgery with radiation than other types of treatment. Surgeons who were trained in surgical oncology, or who treated a high volume of breast cancer patients (greater-than-or-equal 75% of practice), were more likely to initiate communication with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.56; and OR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.76, respectively). A high degree of physician-initiated communication, in turn, was associated with patients' perception of having a treatment choice (OR = 2.46; 95% CI, 1.29 to 4.70), and satisfaction with breast cancer care (OR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.85) in the 3 to 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: Greater patient-physician communication was associated with a sense of choice, actual treatment, and satisfaction with care. Technical information and caring components of communication impacted outcomes differently. Thus, the quality of cancer care for older breast cancer patients may be improved through interventions that improve communication within the physician-patient dyad.

Perceptions of patients and physicians regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication.

PURPOSE: To describe and compare the perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians regarding phase I clinical trials. METHODS: Eligible patients had been offered phase I trial participation and had decided to participate but had not yet begun treatment. Each patient's physician also served as a study subject. Patients and physicians completed questionnaires with domains including perceptions of potential benefit and harm from treatment (experimental and standard), relative value of quality and length of life, and perceived content of patient-physician consultations. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients and 48 physicians completed surveys. Patients had high expectations regarding treatment outcomes (eg, median 60% benefit from experimental therapy), with those choosing to participate in a phase I trial being more optimistic than those declining phase I participation. Patients predicted a higher likelihood of both benefit and adverse reactions from treatment (experimental and standard) than their physicians (P <.0001 for all comparisons). Although 95% of patients reported that quality of life was at least as important as length of life, only 28% reported that changes in quality of life with treatment were discussed with their physicians. In contrast, 73% of physicians reported that this topic was discussed (P <.0001). CONCLUSION: Cancer patients offered phase I trial participation have expectations for treatment benefit that exceed those of their physicians. The discordant perceptions of patients and physicians may possibly be explained by patient optimism and confidence; however, the discrepancies in reports of consultation content, particularly given patients' stated values regarding quality of life, raise the possibility that communication in this context is suboptimal.

An exploration of relative health stock in advanced cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to empirically test whether relative health stock, a measure of patients' sense of loss in their health due to illness, influences the treatment decisions of patients facing life-threatening conditions. Specifically, they estimated the effect of relative health stock on advanced cancer patients' decisions to participate in phase I clinical trials. METHOD: A multicenter study was conducted to survey 328 advanced cancer patients who were offered the opportunity to participate in phase I trials. The authors asked patients to estimate the probabilities of therapeutic benefits and toxicity, their relative health stock, risk preference, and the importance of quality of life. RESULTS: Controlling for health-related quality of life, an increase in relative health stock by 10 percentage points reduced the odds of choosing to participate in a phase I trial by 16% (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.72, 0.97). CONCLUSION: Relative health stock affects advanced cancer patients' treatment decisions.

Decisional conflict among patients who accept or decline participation in phase I oncology studies.

WE COMPARED DECISIONAL CONFLICT among adults with advanced cancer who had accepted or declined participation in phase I cancer clinical trials. Respondents completed a 121-item questionnaire that included the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), which was designed to measure uncertainty in making health decisions. We used standardized effect sizes to compare the DCS scores of accepters (n = 250) and decliners (n = 65). Accepters had lower decisional conflict than decliners overall (d = 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.17--0.68) and on all subscales. Whether greater decisional conflict among decliners represents suboptimal decision-making and is reason for bioethical concern depends on how the results are interpreted. We offer three scenarios to explain the differences and describe opportunities for future empirical work.

Acceptability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the acceptability of new non-invasive breast cancer diagnostic tests intended to triage women in need of biopsy. METHODS: Women who had abnormal screening tests and had been recommended to have a biopsy were invited to receive digital mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nuclear medicine evaluation (Tc-99m-sestamibi scanning) before biopsy. Participants completed a questionnaire about satisfaction and acceptability of the procedures. Satisfaction measured women's overall and test-specific satisfaction. Acceptability was measured by self-reported discomfort, embarrassment and women's preference in terms of willingness to pay to avoid a biopsy. RESULTS: Women were satisfied with all of the potential diagnostic triage procedures. Most found the tests more comfortable than a routine mammogram (47, 50, and 66% undergoing MRI, digital mammography, and sestamibi scanning, respectively). Women who provided a response to willingness to pay questions (N = 43) were willing to pay an average of 611 dollars to have a test instead of a biopsy, if the test was as accurate as biopsy. The willingness to pay significantly decreased to 308 dollars if the test only had 95% accuracy. Those who had prior benign breast disease were less willing to pay for a test with 95% accuracy than those without this history. CONCLUSION: Instead of immediate biopsy after an abnormal screening, these results suggest that women would find non-invasive triage tests acceptable, or preferable to biopsy if they were equally accurate or nearly equally accurate as a biopsy. New technologies to diagnose breast cancer should focus on decreasing discomfort as well as increasing test accuracy.

The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients in Phase I clinical trials sometimes report high expectations regarding the benefit of treatment. The authors examined a range of patient characteristics to determine which factors were associated with greater expectations of benefit from Phase I trials. METHODS: Participants were adult patients with cancer who had been offered participation in Phase I studies and had decided to participate. Patients completed interviewer-administered surveys before initiation of treatment. Physicians assessed Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status for each patient. Statistical analyses (Pearson product moment correlation and t tests) used multiple imputation to account for missing data. RESULTS: Overall, 593 patients who were offered participation in Phase I trials were contacted, and 328 patients agreed to participate in a study of decision making by cancer patients. Of these, 260 patients (79%) enrolled in a Phase I trial. Patients' expectations regarding the chance that their disease would be controlled with experimental therapy were unrelated to age, gender, living situation, education level, or functional status. Expectations were correlated positively with beliefs about the benefit of standard therapy and the maximum benefit patients may experience from experimental therapy. Greater expectations of benefit were associated with better health-related quality of life, stronger religious faith, optimism, relative health stock, monetary risk seeking, and poorer numeracy. CONCLUSIONS: Expectations expressed as beliefs in personal outcomes may be related more to quality of life and personality variables than to patients' knowledge or functional status. Whether such expectations are accurate reflections of knowledge has important implications for evaluating the informed consent process.