Quality of life after immune suppressive therapy in aplastic anemia.

Acquired aplastic anemia (AA) is a rare form of immune-mediated bone marrow failure, which can result in life-threatening infections or bleeding if left untreated. Treatment consists of either immune suppressive therapy (IST) or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). While considerable research has been published regarding survival, response rate and toxicity of both treatments, knowledge on the impact on quality of life (QoL) is scarce. We used the recently developed AA-specific QoL questionnaire (QLQ-AA/PNH-54) to evaluate QoL in a single center cohort of AA patients who were successfully treated with IST. The 54 questions represent 12 different QoL domains. Results were analyzed for all patients and grouped based on hematologic response (complete response (CR) or partial response (PR)). Thirty-six successfully treated adult patients (15 in CR, 21 in PR) completed the questionnaire (median age 54 years, range 21-71; median time since last IST 5 years, range 0-41). Fatigue was experienced by 83% of patients. Even though total QoL scores did not significantly differ between patients with PR and CR (105 vs 92, p-value 0,17) there appeared to be a trend towards higher scores in patients with PR, especially in domains concerning psychological wellbeing. This trend was most clear in the domains fear of progression (2,12 in PR patients vs 1,73 in CR patients; p-value 0,08) and role functioning (2,22 vs 1,88; p-value 0,07). In conclusion, patients with AA continue to experience psychological and physical effects despite successful IST.

Open communication between patients and relatives about illness & death in advanced cancer-results of the eQuiPe Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of openness of communication about illness and death between patients with advanced cancer and their relatives during the last three months of the patient's life, and its association with relatives' characteristics and bereavement distress. METHODS: We used data from bereaved relatives of patients with advanced cancer from the prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational eQuipe study. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to assess the association between the degree of openness of communication (measured using the validated Caregivers' Communication with patients about Illness and Death scale), the a priori defined characteristics of the relatives, and the degree of bereavement distress (measured using the Impact of Event Scale). RESULTS: A total of 160 bereaved relatives were included in the analysis. The average degree of open communication about illness and death between patients with advanced cancer and their relatives was 3.86 on a scale of 1 to 5 (SE=0.08). A higher degree of open communication was associated with a lower degree of bereavement distress (p=0.003). No associations were found between the degree of open communication and the relatives' age (p=0.745), gender (p=0.196), level of education (p>0.773), (religious) worldview (p=0.435), type of relationship with the patient (p>0.548), or level of emotional functioning before the patient's death (p=0.075). CONCLUSIONS: Open communication about illness and death between patients and relatives seems to be important, as it is associated with a lower degree of bereavement distress. Healthcare professionals can play an important role in encouraging the dialogue. However, it is important to keep in mind that some people not feel comfortable talking about illness and death.

Optimizing placebo and minimizing nocebo effects through communication: e-learning and virtual reality training development.

BACKGROUND: The effects of many treatments in healthcare are determined by factors other than the treatment itself. Patients' expectations and the relationship with their healthcare provider can significantly affect treatment outcomes and thereby play a major role in eliciting placebo and nocebo effects. We aim to develop and evaluate an innovative communication training, consisting of an e-learning and virtual reality (VR) training, for healthcare providers across all disciplines, to optimize placebo and minimize nocebo effects through healthcare provider-patient communication. The current paper describes the development, mid-term evaluation, optimization, and final evaluation of the communication training, conducted in The Netherlands. METHODS: The development of both the e-learning and the VR training consisted of four phases: 1) content and technical development, 2) mid-term evaluation by healthcare providers and placebo/communication researchers, 3) optimization of the training, and 4) final evaluation by healthcare providers. To ensure the success, applicability, authenticity, and user-friendliness of the communication training, there was ongoing structural collaboration with healthcare providers as future end users, experts in the field of placebo/communication research, and educational experts in all phases. RESULTS: Placebo/communication researchers and healthcare providers evaluated the e-learning positively (overall 7.9 on 0-10 scale) and the content was perceived as useful, accessible, and interesting. The VR training was assessed with an overall 6.9 (0-10 scale) and was evaluated as user-friendly and a safe method for practicing communication skills. Although there were some concerns regarding the authenticity of the VR training (i.e. to what extent the virtual patient reacts like a real patient), placebo and communication researchers, as well as healthcare providers, recognized the significant potential of the VR training for the future. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an innovative and user-friendly communication training, consisting of an e-learning and VR training (2D and 3D), that can be used to teach healthcare providers how to optimize placebo effects and minimize nocebo effects through healthcare provider-patient communication. Future studies can work on improved authenticity, translate the training into other languages and cultures, expand with additional VR cases, and measure the expected effects on providers communication skills and subsequently patient outcomes.

Effects of prognostic communication strategies on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations: An experimental study in advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate effects of prognostic communication strategies on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations in advanced cancer. METHODS: For this experimental study, we created 8 videos of a scripted oncological consultation, only varying in prognostic communication strategies. Disease-naive individuals (n = 1036) completed surveys before and after watching 1 video, while imagining being the depicted cancer patient. We investigated effects of the type of disclosure (prognostic disclosure vs. communication of unpredictability vs. non-disclosure) and content of disclosure (standard vs. standard and best-case vs. standard, best- and worst-case survival scenarios; numerical vs. word-based estimates) on emotions, coping, and appreciation of consultations. Moderating effects of individual characteristics were tested. RESULTS: Participants generally reported more satisfaction (p < .001) after prognostic disclosure versus communication of unpredictability and less uncertainty (p = .042), more satisfaction (p = .005), and more desirability (p = .016) regarding prognostic information after numerical versus word-based estimates. Effects of different survival scenarios were absent. Prognostic communication strategies lacked effects on emotions and coping. Significant moderators included prognostic information preference and uncertainty tolerance. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: In an experimental setting, prognostic disclosure does not cause more negative emotions than non-disclosure and numerical estimates are more strongly appreciated than words. Oncologists' worries about harming patients should not preclude disclosing (precise) prognostic information, yet sensitivity to individual preferences and characteristics remains pivotal.

Harmful communication behaviors in cancer care: A systematic review of patients and family caregivers perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Issues regarding clinician communication remain an important source of complaints within healthcare. This systematic review aims to determine cancer patients' and their family caregivers' views on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm (i.e. eliciting negative feelings/consequences for patients/family caregivers). METHODS: We searched for all types of peer-reviewed studies that determined adult (≥18 years) cancer patients' and/or family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm in several databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier), supplemented by expert-consultation. Studies were screened using the Artificial intelligence screening tool of ASReview and data was analyzed using Thematic Analysis. To assess the quality of the studies the Qualsyst critical appraisal tool was used. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were included. Four main themes of harmful communication behaviors were identified: (1) Lack of tailored information provision (e.g. giving too little or too much/specific information) (2) Lack of tailored decision making (ranging from; patient exclusion, to the patients' responsibility, and/or haste) (3) Lack of feeling seen and heard (seen as a disease, not as a human being; not listened to concerns and emotions) (4) Lack of feeling held and remembered (forgotten agreements; lack of care continuity). CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal an overview of patients' and family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm. Harm could be prevented when information and decision involvement are tailored and patients' and family caregivers' needs to feel seen, heard, held and remembered are met.

Mind your words: Oncologists' communication that potentially harms patients with advanced cancer: A survey on patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Many complaints in medicine and in advanced illnesses are about communication. Little is known about which specific communications harm. This study explored the perspectives of patients with advanced cancer about potentially harmful communication behaviors by oncologists and helpful alternatives. METHODS: An online survey design was used that was based on literature scoping and patient/clinician/researcher input. Patients with advanced cancer (n = 74) reflected on the potential harmfulness of 19 communication situations. They were asked whether they perceived the situation as one in which communication could be harmful (yes/no). If they answered "yes," they were asked whether they perceived the examples as harmful (yes/no) or helpful (yes/no) and to provide open comments. Results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively (content analysis). RESULTS: Communication regarding information provision, prognosis discussion, decision-making, and empathy could be unnecessarily potentially harmful, and this occurred in various ways, such as making vague promises instead of concrete ones (92%), being too directive in decision-making (qualitative), and not listening to the patient (88%). Not all patients considered other situations potentially harmful (eg, introducing the option of refraining from anticancer therapy [49%] and giving too much [prognostic] information [60%]). Exploring each individual patients' needs/preferences seemed to be a precondition for helpful communication. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides patient perspectives on oncologists' unnecessarily potentially harmful communication behaviors and offers practical tools to improve communication in advanced cancer care. Both preventable pitfalls and delicate challenges requiring an individualized approach, where exploration might help, are described. Although providing difficult and unwelcome news is a core task for clinicians, this study might help them to do so while preventing potentially unnecessary harm.

Addressing challenges in information-provision: a qualitative study among oncologists and women with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for more insight into how to address challenges of information-provision for women with advanced breast cancer. We aimed to explore oncologists' and patients' views on (i) the challenges of information-provision, and (ii) possible strategies to address these challenges, meanwhile (iii) exploring the possible facilitating role of positive expectations and empathy. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with oncologists (n = 10) and women with advanced breast cancer (n = 14). Principles of Thematic Analysis were followed, with two researchers analyzing transcribed data, supported by Atlas.ti software. RESULTS: Taken together the data from oncologists and patients, we found that when communicating with patients with advanced cancer, oncologists face challenges, including handling patients' unrealistic disease (status) beliefs, and choosing approaches for discussing available treatment options and their side effects. Possible strategies to address these challenges include balancing information with acceptance of denial, and using medical expertise to guide treatment discussions. A sensitive issue is whether to discuss the option of no anti-cancer treatment. Meanwhile, approaches and preferences for discussions of side effects vary. Positive expectations and empathy can facilitate information-provision by creating space and helping patients to open up more. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating oncologists' and patients' views, oncologists can provide realistic information while also, temporarily, accepting denial, and can use their medical expertise to address challenges around unrealistic beliefs and discussion of treatment options. Finding ways to tailor discussions of no anti-cancer treatment and side-effect information are needed. Positive expectations and empathy might facilitate - tailored - information-provision, leading ultimately to patient-centered care lying at the heart of medicine.

Instrumental and affective communication with patients with limited health literacy in the palliative phase of cancer or COPD.

BACKGROUND: Patients have a 'need to know' (instrumental need) and a 'need to feel known' (affective need). During consultations with patients with limited health literacy (LHL) in the palliative phase of their disease, both the instrumental and the affective communication skills of healthcare providers are important. The study aims to explore instrumental and affective communication between care providers and LHL patients in the palliative phase of COPD or cancer. METHODS: In 2018, consultations between LHL patients in the palliative phase of cancer or COPD and their healthcare providers were video-recorded in four hospitals in the Netherlands. As there was no observation algorithm available for this setting, several items were created to parameterize healthcare providers' instrumental communication (seven items: understanding, patient priorities, medical status, treatment options, treatment consequences, prognosis, and information about emotional distress) and affective communication (six items: hope, support, reassurance, empathy, appreciation, and emotional coping). The degree of each item was recorded for each consultation, with relevant segments of the observation selected and transcribed to support the items. RESULTS: Consultations between 17 care providers and 39 patients were video-recorded and analyzed. Care providers primarily used instrumental communication, most often by giving information about treatment options and assessing patients' care priorities. Care providers assessed patients' understanding of their disease less often. The patients' prognosis was not mentioned in half the consultations. Within the affective domain, the care providers did provide support for their patients; providing hope, reassurance, empathy, and appreciation and discussing emotional coping were observed less often. CONCLUSIONS: Care providers used mostly instrumental communication, especially treatment information, in consultations with LHL patients in the palliative phase of cancer or COPD. Most care providers did not check if the patient understood the information, which is rather crucial, especially given patients' limited level of health literacy. Healthcare providers did provide support for patients, but other expressions of affective communication by care providers were less common. To adapt the communication to LHL patients in palliative care, care providers could be less wordy and reduce the amount of information, use 'teach-back' techniques and pay more attention to affective communication.

Explicit prognostic disclosure to Asian women with breast cancer: A randomized, scripted video-vignette study (J-SUPPORT1601).

BACKGROUND: Nondisclosure of a poor prognosis to patients with advanced cancer remains a typical practice in Asia. Although the importance of prognostic communication has increasingly been recognized worldwide, little is known about whether explicit prognostic disclosure positively affects Asian patients with advanced cancer. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of explicit prognostic communication on patients with cancer recurrence. METHODS: In this randomized, video-vignette study, Japanese women with breast cancer who had undergone curative surgery viewed videos of prognostic communication between a patient with recurrent, incurable breast cancer and her oncologist. The videos differed only in the presence or absence of explicit prognostic disclosure. The primary outcome was participants' uncertainty (rated from 0 to 10), and the secondary outcomes included anxiety (measured on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State: range, 20-80), satisfaction (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire; range 0-10), self-efficacy (range, 0-10), and willingness to discuss advance care planning (range, 1-4). RESULTS: In total, 105 women participated (mean ± SD age, 53.8 ± 8.2 years). After viewing the video with more versus less explicit disclosure, participants showed significantly lower uncertainty (mean ± SE scores, 5.3 ±0.2 vs 5.7 ± 0.2, respectively; P = .032) and higher satisfaction (5.6 ± 0.2 vs 5.2 ± 0.2, respectively; P = .010) without increasing anxiety (changes in scores on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State: 0.06 ± 0.5 vs 0.6 ± 0.5, respectively; P = .198). No significant differences were observed in self-efficacy (5.2 ± 0.2 vs 5.0 ± 0.2, respectively; P = .277) or willingness to discuss advance care planning (2.7 ± 0.1 vs 2.7 ± 0.1, respectively; P = .240). CONCLUSIONS: Explicit prognostic disclosure prompted better outcomes than nondisclosure in Japanese women with breast cancer. When asked about the prognosis by Asian patients with cancer, clinicians may be encouraged to respect their wishes and explicitly discuss the prognosis if deemed appropriate.

Availability and effectiveness of decision aids for supporting shared decision making in patients with advanced colorectal and lung cancer: Results from a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making is not always commonplace in advanced colorectal or lung cancer care. Decision aids (DAs) might be helpful. This review aimed (a) to provide an overview of DAs for patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer and assess their availability; and (b) to assess their effectiveness if possible. METHODS: A systematic literature search (PubMed/EMBASE/PsycINFO/CINAHL) and Internet and expert searches were carried out to identify relevant DAs. Data from the DAs included were extracted and the quality of studies, evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and effectiveness (International Patient Decision Aid Standards) of DAs were determined. RESULTS: Ten of the 12 DAs included (four colorectal cancer, four lung cancer and four generic) are still available. Most (9/12) were applicable throughout the disease pathway and usable for all decisions, or to the decision for supportive care with/without anti-cancer therapy. Seven studies tested effectiveness. Effects on patient outcomes varied, but were generally weakly positive (e.g., DAs improved patient satisfaction) with low evidence. Study quality was fair to good. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of readily available DAs that have been demonstrated to be effective in advanced colorectal or lung cancer. Rigorous testing of the effects of currently available and future DAs, to improve patient outcomes, is urgently needed.

The availability and effectiveness of tools supporting shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer care: a review.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) in the management of metastatic breast cancer care is associated with positive patient outcomes. In daily clinical practice, however, SDM is not fully integrated yet. Initiatives to improve the implementation of SDM would be helpful. The aim of this review was to assess the availability and effectiveness of tools supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer care. METHODS: Literature databases were systematically searched for articles published since 2006 focusing on the development or evaluation of tools to improve information-provision and to support decision-making in metastatic breast cancer care. Internet searches and experts identified additional tools. Data from included tools were extracted and the evaluation of tools was appraised using the GRADE grading system. RESULTS: The literature search yielded five instruments. In addition, two tools were identified via internet searches and consultation of experts. Four tools were specifically developed for supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer, the other three tools focused on metastatic cancer in general. Tools were mainly applicable across the care process, and usable for decisions on supportive care with or without chemotherapy. All tools were designed for patients to be used before a consultation with the physician. Effects on patient outcomes were generally weakly positive although most tools were not studied in well-designed studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its recognized importance, only two tools were positively evaluated on effectiveness and are available to support patients with metastatic breast cancer in SDM. These tools show promising results in pilot studies and focus on different aspects of care. However, their effectiveness should be confirmed in well-designed studies before implementation in clinical practice. Innovation and development of SDM tools targeting clinicians as well as patients during a clinical encounter is recommended.

How integrated are neurology and palliative care services? Results of a multicentre mapping exercise.

BACKGROUND: Patients affected by progressive long-term neurological conditions might benefit from specialist palliative care involvement. However, little is known on how neurology and specialist palliative care services interact. This study aimed to map the current level of connections and integration between these services. METHODS: The mapping exercise was conducted in eight centres with neurology and palliative care services in the United Kingdom. The data were provided by the respective neurology and specialist palliative care teams. Questions focused on: i) catchment and population served; ii) service provision and staffing; iii) integration and relationships. RESULTS: Centres varied in size of catchment areas (39-5,840 square miles) and population served (142,000-3,500,000). Neurology and specialist palliative care were often not co-terminus. Service provisions for neurology and specialist palliative care were also varied. For example, neurology services varied in the number and type of provided clinics and palliative care services in the settings they work in. Integration was most developed in Motor Neuron Disease (MND), e.g., joint meetings were often held, followed by Parkinsonism (made up of Parkinson's Disease (PD), Multiple-System Atrophy (MSA) and Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP), with integration being more developed for MSA and PSP) and least in Multiple Sclerosis (MS), e.g., most sites had no formal links. The number of neurology patients per annum receiving specialist palliative care reflected these differences in integration (range: 9-88 MND, 3-25 Parkinsonism, and 0-5 MS). CONCLUSIONS: This mapping exercise showed heterogeneity in service provision and integration between neurology and specialist palliative care services, which varied not only between sites but also between diseases. This highlights the need and opportunities for improved models of integration, which should be rigorously tested for effectiveness.

How should we manage information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness for those affected by advanced disease: development of a Clinical Decision Support Tool using a Delphi design.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians request guidance to aid the routine use and interpretation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), but tools are lacking. We aimed to develop a Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) focused on information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness (measured using the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS)) and related PROM implementation guidance. METHODS: We drafted recommendations based on findings from systematic literature searches. In a modified online Delphi study, 38 experts from 12 countries with different professional backgrounds, including four patient/carer representatives, were invited to rate the appropriateness of these recommendations for problems of varying severity in the CDST. The quality of evidence was added for each recommendation, and the final draft CDST reappraised by the experts. The accompanying implementation guidance was built on data from literature scoping with expert revision (n = 11 invited experts). RESULTS: The systematic literature searches identified over 560 potential references, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. Two Delphi rounds (response rate 66% and 62%; n = 25 and 23) found that good patient care, psychosocial support and empathy, and open communication were central to supporting patients and families affected by all POS concerns as a core requirement. Assessment was recommended for increasing problems (i.e. scores), followed by non-pharmacological interventions and for breathlessness and depression, pharmacological interventions. Accompanying PROM implementation guidance was built based on the 8-step International Society for Quality of Life Research framework, as revised by nine (response rate 82%) experts. CONCLUSIONS: This CDST provides a straightforward guide to help support clinical care and improve evidence-based outcomes for patients with progressive illness and their families, addressing four areas of clinical uncertainty. Recommendations should be used flexibly, alongside skilled individual clinical assessment and knowledge, taking into account patients' and families' individual preferences, circumstances, and resources. The CDST is provided with accompanying implementation guidance to facilitate PROM use and is ready for further development and evaluation.

Talking about Death with Children with Incurable Cancer: Perspectives from Parents.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the rationale and consequences associated with a parent's decision to discuss death with a child with incurable cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We present data from a larger retrospective study involving bereaved parents of a child who died of cancer. Parents were asked whether they had discussed the impending death with their child, whether they reflected on this discussion positively, their reasons for not discussing death with their child, and the manner in which the conversation regarding death occurred. The data were analyzed qualitatively using a framework approach. RESULTS: Of the 86 parents of 56 children who answered the questions regarding discussing death with their child, 55 parents of 35 children did not discuss the impending death with their child. The following themes were identified: the parents' inability to discuss the impending death; the parents' desire to protect their child; views regarding talking with children; parents' views of child characteristics; the child's unwillingness to discuss the subject; lack of opportunity to talk; and the child's disability. The parents who did discuss death with their child generally used symbolic and/or religious narratives, or they had brief, direct conversations regarding death. The majority of parents felt positive regarding their decision about whether to talk with their child about his/her impending death. CONCLUSION: Most parents in this study cited several reasons for not discussing death with their child. Our findings highlight the sensitive and complex issues surrounding these conversations, indicating that there may be a role for clinicians in supporting parents.

Effects of Prognostic Communication Strategies on Prognostic Perceptions, Treatment Decisions and End-Of-Life Anticipation in Advanced Cancer: An Experimental Study among Analogue Patients.

CONTEXT: Evidence-based guidance for oncologists on how to communicate prognosis is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of prognostic communication strategies (prognostic disclosure vs. communication of unpredictability vs. non-disclosure; standard vs. standard and best-case vs. standard, best- and worst-case survival scenarios; numerical vs. word-based estimates) on prognostic perceptions, treatment decision-making and end-of-life anticipation in advanced cancer. METHODS: This experimental study used eight videos of a scripted oncological consultation, varying only in prognostic communication strategies. Cancer-naive individuals, who imagined being the depicted patient, completed surveys before and after watching one video (n = 1036). RESULTS: Individuals generally perceived dying within 1 year as more likely after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001), and after numerical versus word-based estimates (P < 0.001). Individuals felt better informed about prognosis to decide about treatment after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001); after communication of unpredictability versus non-disclosure (P < 0.001); and after numerical versus word-based estimates (P = 0.017). Chemotherapy was more often favored after prognostic disclosure versus non-disclosure (P = 0.010), but less often after numerical versus word-based estimates (P < 0.001). Individuals felt more certain about the treatment decision after prognostic disclosure, compared to communication of unpredictability or non-disclosure (P < 0.001). Effects of different survival scenarios were absent. No effects on end-of-life anticipation were observed. Evidence for moderating individual characteristics was limited. CONCLUSION: If and how oncologists discuss prognosis can influence how individuals perceive prognosis, which treatment they prefer, and how they feel about treatment decisions. Communicating numerical estimates may stimulate prognostic understanding and informed treatment decision-making.

Effect of Clinician-Expressed Empathy in Advanced Cancer on Different Ethnic Groups: Results from an Experimental Video-Vignette Study.

Background: In advanced cancer, clinician-expressed empathy can improve patients' psychological outcomes. It remains unknown whether all patients benefit equally from empathy. Objective: To explore whether the effect of clinician-expressed empathy on patients' psychological outcomes is moderated by patient ethnicity. Methods: Using an experimental video-vignette design, 160 participants watched a consultation-video with/without added empathy. Using regression analysis, the moderating effect of ethnicity (non-Western- vs. Dutch/Western-immigration background) on the relationship between empathy and psychological outcomes was assessed. Results: The main effect of empathy on satisfaction (p = 0.001), trust (p = 0.002), and self-efficacy (p < 0.001) was moderated by ethnicity (satisfaction, p = 0.050; trust, p = 0.066; self-efficacy, p = 0.075). No main effect of empathy nor moderation by ethnicity was found for anxiety (state anxiety: p = 0.284, p = 0.319; current anxiety: p = 0.357, p = 0.949). No main effects of ethnicity (satisfaction, p = 0.942; trust, p = 0.724; self-efficacy, p = 0.244; state anxiety, p = 0.812; current anxiety p = 0.523) were found. Conclusion: In advanced cancer, non-Western patients might benefit most from empathy. Dutch Trial Registration Number: NTR NL8992.

Good versus bad news consultations in advanced breast cancer: the role of empathy in information recall - an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: We explored, in advanced breast cancer, whether: (1) patients recall less information following bad versus good news consultations; (2) empathy has a greater effect on recalled information following bad versus good news consultations. METHODS: Observational study using audio-recorded consultations. Participants' recall of provided information about treatment options, aims/positive effects and side-effects was assessed. Clinician-expressed empathy and consultation type were determined. Regression analyses assessed associations between consultation type and recall, exploring moderating influences of clinician-expressed empathy. RESULTS: For 41 consultations (18 bad news, 23 good news), recall data were completed; total recall (47% vs 73%, p=0.03) and recall about treatment options (67% vs 85%, p=0.08, trend) were significantly worse following bad news compared with good news consultations. Recall about treatment aims/positive effects (53% vs 70%, p=0.30) and side-effects (28% vs 49%, p=0.20) was not significantly worse following bad news. Empathy moderated the relationship between consultation type and total recall (p<0.01), recall about treatment options (p=0.03) and about aims/positive effects (p<0.01) but not about side-effects (p=0.10). Only following good news consultations empathy influenced recall favourably. CONCLUSIONS: This explorative study suggests that in advanced cancer, information recall is especially impaired following bad news consultations, for which empathy does not improve remembered information.

Unveiling the hidden struggles: Exploring the profound impact of advanced stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma on quality of life.

Erythrodermic mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome are chronic, relapsing-remitting diseases that greatly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL). Mogamulizumab-kpkc (Mogamulizumab) is a novel therapeutic agent for cutaneous T-cell lymphomas with a notable impact on progression-free survival. Qualitative assessment methods allow a broader exploration and greater insight in individual patient experience than quantitative studies. However, there is limited data on the impact of mogamulizumab on health-related QoL. To investigate the impact of erythrodermic cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (E-CTCL) on QoL and the effect of mogamulizumab on the QoL. Semi-structured interview were conducted with seven patients with E-CTCL that were receiving mogamulizumab treatment. Five major themes arose: Diagnosis and the diagnostic delay and uncertainty experienced by participants; Physical functioning due to the high symptom burden; Psychological and social functioning considering the significant impact on daily life; Treatment and the effect of mogamulizumab; and Support by family, friends and health professionals. Mogamulizumab therapy resulted in a significant decrease of symptoms. The small sample size should also be taken into account although data saturation was reached. This study gives a broad insight into the large impact of E-CTCL and the major consequences on the physical functioning as well as on the emotional/psychological and social well-being. Mogamulizumab appears to have a positive effect on symptoms.