Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology Advance Access originally published online on January 31, 2008
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008 38(1):64-70; doi:10.1093/jjco/hym147
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
Palliative Chemotherapy Preferences and Factors that Influence Patient Choice in Incurable Advanced Cancer
1 Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, South Korea
2 Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Gyeongju, South Korea
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, South Korea
4 Department of Internal Medicine, Kyoungpook National University Hospital, Gyeongju, South Korea
5 Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University College of Medicine, Daegu, Gyeongju, South Korea
6 Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, South Korea
For reprints and all correspondence: Kyung Hee Lee, Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, 317-1 Daemyung dong, Namgu, Daegu 705-717, South Korea. E-mail: lkhee{at}medical.yu.ac.kr
Received June 21, 2007; accepted October 8, 2007
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract INTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONFundingReferences |
|---|
Objective: To determine the extent of informed decision-making and treatment preference of Korean patients receiving palliative chemotherapy.
Methods: We assessed 138 patients (median age: 58 years; 73% male) with advanced cancer who had received at least one cycle of chemotherapy. General demographic information, the extent of information received, patient preferences for palliative chemotherapy and randomized trials were determined using structured patient interviews. We investigated the survival threshold for justifying toxicity, the factors influencing individual preference for chemotherapy and the attitude of patients towards randomized trials.
Results: Before chemotherapy, 72.1% of patients were given information about adverse events of treatment, but only 39.5% were told of alternative treatments. There was significant inter-individual variability in willingness to accept chemotherapy, as well as a wide range of thresholds. Patients reporting higher quality of life were more likely to judge treatment as acceptable. When given the choice for randomization for conventional chemotherapy, investigational agents or supportive care, patients usually refused enrollment into randomized trials.
Conclusion: Self-assessed quality of life was a significant predictor of stronger preference for chemotherapy. In the palliative setting, good doctor–patient communications and consideration of patients' preferences are necessary for making decisions about proper treatment.
Key Words: palliative care • quality of life • clinical trial
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONFundingReferences |
|---|
Over 50% of all cancer patients receive chemotherapy for metastatic disease (1). For individuals with incurable cancer, treatment decisions are complicated, and greater provision of information to patients, as well as their participation in treatment decision-making, is needed. Prior to choosing appropriate chemotherapy, a full discussion about treatment response, adverse events and prognosis is necessary. Several studies have suggested that, due to cultural differences, Western values about patient autonomy may not be universally applicable (2). However, most Korean cancer patients also want to be informed about their illness (3).
In Western countries, several studies focused on informed decision-making and patient preference for chemotherapy have reported that prognostic information is significantly associated with treatment choice by cancer patients (4–6). In addition, patient willingness to undergo potentially toxic chemotherapy has been found to vary widely (7–10). In Asian countries, however, relatively little is known about the decision-making processes or chemotherapy preferences of cancer patients.
Meanwhile, randomization of patients to different treatments has become accepted, almost without question, in controlled clinical trials. Nevertheless, randomization may be inappropriate when the clinician or patient believes that one of the treatments is superior to the other. It is not uncommon for physicians to encounter patients who refuse to participate in a randomized study. To date, there has been little research regarding the frequency or the primary reasons for refusing trial entry.
We therefore sought to evaluate the extent to which cancer patients are provided information about their disease and chemotherapy options, as well as to determine patient preference for chemotherapy and participation in randomized clinical trials.
|
PATIENTS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONFundingReferences |
|---|
Patient Population
Patients participated in this study were those with metastatic solid cancers, who had received at least one cycle of chemotherapy for metastatic disease from five hospitals. Patients with education level over elementary school were included. Between March 2004 and August 2004, 138 patients were enrolled into the study along with nine oncologists at five tertiary referral hospitals. To ensure that responses were not influenced by recently experienced side effects, subjects underwent a semi-structured interview, with a trained research nurse, at least 3 weeks after previous chemotherapy. Patients were required to give written informed consent before interviews were performed. Interviews were completed by 129 patients, and their questionnaires were used in the analyses.
Interview Structure
Subjects were initially asked eight questions on sociodemographic factors, adverse events experienced during chemotherapy, improvement of symptoms and overall quality of life during chemotherapy. Sociodemographic information included age, sex, socioeconomic factors such as degree of support required and monthly income. Patients who experienced any adverse events requiring hospitalization were checked. Improvement of symptoms and quality of life were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS), with scores of 0–10. We classified the scores of 0–3 as poor, 4–6 as fair and 7–10 as good.
Patients were also asked four questions to assess whether they were informed about response rate, impact on survival prolongation, major adverse events and alternative treatment strategies before chemotherapy. The questions were: (i) Has your doctor told you how effective this chemotherapy has been for other patients? (ii) Has your doctor told you how long your life may be prolonged? (iii) Has your doctor told you about the major side effects? (iv) Has your doctor told you about any alternative treatments to chemotherapy?
All patients were then presented with three scenarios, each describing the same hypothetical patient, a 55-year-old man with advanced metastatic cancer who had been told by his physician that he has an incurable illness, and an expected survival without treatment of approximately 6 months. The benefits of chemotherapy were not discussed with the patients, but the purpose of clinical trials and the meaning of terms such as ‘randomization’, ‘investigational group’, and ‘control group’ were explained. The scenarios were presented in the following order, with Scenarios 1 and 2 similar to those described earlier (9):
Scenario 1: mild toxicity—in this scenario, the side effects of chemotherapy were mild and tolerated and included nausea, fatigue and asthenia, lasting several days after the treatment cycle.
Scenario 2: severe toxicity—in this scenario, the side effects of chemotherapy were sometimes severe, with a potential need for hospitalization and a 1% chance of death. The side effects included fatigue, weakness, poor appetite, mouth sores, diarrhea, infection and fever.
After each of these scenarios was presented, patients were asked the following questions: ‘Suppose that without treatment you would live 6 months. Based on your own experience of chemotherapy, would you accept this chemotherapy?’ (yes/no)
‘If you decide to receive/refuse the chemotherapy, what period of survival would make mild/severe chemotherapy-related toxicity worthwhile?’ (1/3/6/12/18/24 months)
Scenario 3: ‘At present, there are no standard treatments for your illness. The benefits of conventional chemotherapy or investigational chemotherapy with a new drug over the best supportive care have not been proven. If you were asked to participate in these three separate clinical trials, would you agree to participate?’
(i) You are randomized to conventional chemotherapy or supportive care, would you agree to participate? If not, what are your reasons for refusing?
(ii) You are randomized to conventional chemotherapy or investigational chemotherapy, would you agree to participate? If not, what are your reasons for refusing?
(iii) During the time you receive only supportive care, a new drug is developed. If your clinician advises participation in a clinical trial with the new investigational agent, would you agree to participate? If not, what are your reasons for refusing?
Each patient's physician was asked to complete an additional questionnaire, which included diagnosis, 1st line/2nd line chemotherapy, and subjective opinion on the effectiveness of chemotherapy (poor, fair or good).
Study Analysis
The characteristics of the sample were summarized using descriptive statistics. For scenarios 1 and 2, we recorded the shortest survival duration for which each subject would choose chemotherapy. We then constructed a cumulative distribution of the percentage of subjects choosing chemotherapy as a function of the additional survival time offered by chemotherapy. To estimate the survival threshold value for each subject, we averaged the longest survival duration for which chemotherapy was rejected with the shortest survival duration for which chemotherapy was accepted. The Paired t-test and 
2-test was used to determine significant differences in variables between subgroups. Median survival thresholds across subjects were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test for the two nominal subgroups, and the non-parametric test of trends for the two ordered subgroups. Patient and disease factors predicting individual preferences were assessed by multivariate linear regression analysis. SPSS for Windows, version 12.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), was used for statistical computations.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONFundingReferences |
|---|
Patient Demographics and Treatment Details
Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. The median age was 58 years (range: 25–77 years), and the majority (72.1%) was men. During previous chemotherapy, 28 patients (21.7%) experienced moderate adverse events requiring hospitalization. Seventy-seven patients (60.7%) stated that they had some financial support from their family.
|
Components/Elements of Informed Decision-making
Of the 129 assessable patients, 93 (72.1%) were told about the side effects of their treatments, and 77 (59.7%) were told of responses of other patients to their chemotherapy regimens. Fewer than half, however, were given information about the impact of their chemotherapy on survival (n = 62, 48.1%), and just over one-third (n = 51, 39.5%) were presented with an alternative to anticancer therapy, such as supportive care (Fig. 1).
|
Patient Preferences for Chemotherapy and Trade-off Survival Threshold
Whereas 70.5% of patients agreed to receive chemotherapy with mild toxicity (Scenario 1), only 49.6% agreed to chemotherapy with severe toxicity (Scenario 2) (Table 2, P < 0.001). The median survival thresholds were 12 months for mild toxicity and 21 months for severe toxicity (Fig. 2 and Table 4, P < 0.001). No patient chose chemotherapy with severe toxicity if survival time was less than that obtained with chemotherapy with mild toxicity.
|
|
Factors Affecting Patient Preferences for Chemotherapy and Issues Potentially Associated with Trade-off Thresholds
There were significant differences in preference relative to adverse events, symptom improvement, 1st line/2nd line treatment, and self-assessed quality of life (Table 2). Multivariate analysis showed that self assessed quality of life and the oncologist's subjective opinion of the effectiveness of chemotherapy were significant predictors of stronger preference for chemotherapy, regardless of toxicity (Table 3). Age and experience of adverse events were predictors of choice of chemotherapy with severe toxicity. In contrast, other factors, including sex and socioeconomic factors, had little relationship to these thresholds. Older patients showed a trend toward being less willing to trade significant toxicity for increased survival time and their survival threshold was longer than that of younger patients (Tables 2 and 4).
|
|
Patient Preferences for Randomized Clinical Trials
A significant number of patients refused random allocation to conventional chemotherapy, best supportive care and investigational agents (Fig. 3). One hundred patients (77.5%) refused to participate in a clinical trial with randomization to a conventional chemotherapy or supportive care; of the 48 patients who provided reasons, 21 (43.8%) did so because ‘chemotherapy would more likely give greater clinical benefit than supportive care’, and 27 (56.2%) did so because ‘the final choice of treatment has to be mine’ or ‘the decision should be made after discussion between patient and physician’.
|
In addition, 80 patients (62.0%) refused to participate in a clinical trial with randomization to conventional or investigational chemotherapy; of the 31 patients who provided reasons, 18 (58.1%) did so because ‘the final choice of treatment has to be made by patients and their physicians’, whereas 13 (41.9%) did so because ‘I am anxious about the side effects of investigational agents’. Conversely, 75 patients (58.1%) agreed to participate in trials with investigational agents; of the 12 who provided reasons for refusal, the most common was the uncertainty of investigational agents. There were no significant correlations between sociodemographic variables and choice of trial entry.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONFundingReferences |
|---|
In Korea, approximately 100 000 new cases of cancer are diagnosed each year, and the incidence has increased in the past 15 years (11). Up to 1980s, most Korean physicians preferred not to reveal cancer diagnoses to their patients, but in recent years most physicians have told their patients when they had cancer, a change that occurred approximately 20 years later than in the Western countries (12,13). We sought to evaluate the extent of informed decision-making in Korean tertiary hospitals and the expected survival time justifying toxicity, as well as to analyze patient preferences regarding randomized clinical trials.
We found that more than 50% of patients with advanced malignancies were told of the adverse events associated with their treatment, and of the response expected. However, a minority of patients were given information about life expectancy and alternatives to anticancer therapy. Given that we assessed patient recall as a measure of informed choice, the information presented is comparable with other results (14,15). In a previous study, a significant independent effect has been demonstrated with regard to the physician's specialty, with a referral bias as patients were referred to medical oncologists for consultation about chemotherapy (16). Similarly, our finding that few patients were informed about alternative therapies shows the tendency of medical oncologists to prefer chemotherapy. It is also admitted that despite careful explanations of medical information, some patients could not comprehend these explanations or the additional factor of denial might decrease or alter receptiveness (3,17). For all events studied, our observations on informed decision-making by patients suggest that physicians supply imbalanced explanations about palliative chemotherapy, thus limiting the informed decision-making process.
Consistent with previous studies, self-assessment of quality of life had a significant relationship to the choice of chemotherapy and survival thresholds (7–10). The physician's opinion regarding chemotherapy was the other important factor. However, in contrast to previous studies, we observed no meaningful correlations between economic status and choice of chemotherapy. This may be explained in part by the availability of national insurance in Korea. In addition, there was a substantial variation in patient willingness to accept cancer treatment that was potentially toxic. A previous study showed that patients, as compared with their physicians, more commonly overestimated their chance of surviving 6 months (5). Our results show a 2-fold longer survival threshold than previous studies, and that the median survival threshold, which is often a trade-off with mild toxicity, was 12 months (9). The survival threshold was probably affected by the majority of patients overestimating their survival duration. Korean physicians have been shown to lack the time to adequately discuss clinical options, thus contributing to poor doctor–patient communication. Therefore, consideration of the time pressures on physicians should be addressed urgently to improve doctor–patient communication.
Finally, we found that most patients refused randomization to conventional chemotherapy and best supportive care, although there was no data to support one over the other. More patients consented to randomization to conventional chemotherapy or investigational chemotherapy, and 58.1% of patients agreed to investigational chemotherapy if they could choose rather than be randomized to treatment. These results are similar to those of an earlier study regarding trial-entry preferences (18). In fact, cancer patients were found to be reluctant to ‘do nothing’, and many patients may have mistakenly believed that ‘supportive care’ means ‘no treatment’. One of the most contentious questions in palliative care research is whether a placebo control arm is ethically appropriate (19–21). Our results suggest a potential risk in placebo-control trials and support the importance of equipoise in the phase III setting.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, only patients who received chemotherapy were included in the analysis, thus possibly generating a selection bias. Second, there may be a difference between preferences in a hypothetical situation and those personally relevant in a clinical situation. In addition, we could not include all the characteristics that may influence a physician's preferences in the questions asked. For example, cost-effectiveness of therapy and patient educational level were disregarded, although they may have an impact on the decision-making process. We could not assess the reliability of the interview, and we should have used a more validated quality-of-life assessment scale. Finally, we assessed the extent of informed decision under the assumption that the majority of Korean patients preferred to be told all possible information. Further studies, on larger numbers of patients, are needed.
Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that in the palliative setting, physicians should determine patient preference for treatment and consider this aspect of patient care central to the decision regarding chemotherapy.
|
Funding |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONFundingReferences |
|---|
Yeungnam University research grants in 2007.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractINTRODUCTIONPATIENTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONFundingReferences |
|---|
1 Koedoot CG, de Haan RJ, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice. Br J Cancer (2003) 89:2219–26.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
2 Blackhall LJ, Murphy ST, Frank G, Michel V, Azen S. Ethnicity and attitudes toward patient autonomy. JAMA (1995) 274:820–5.[Abstract]
3 Yun YH, Lee CG, Kim SY, et al. The attitudes of cancer patients and their families toward the disclosure of terminal illness. J Clin Oncol (2004) 22:307–14.
4 Weeks JC, Cook EF, O'Day SJ, et al. Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA (1998) 279:1709–14.
5 Eidinger RN, Schapira DV. Cancer patients' insight into their treatment, prognosis, and unconventional therapies. Cancer (1984) 53:2736–40.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
6 Mackillop WJ, Stewart WE, Ginsburg AD, Stewart SS. Cancer patients' perceptions of their disease and its treatment. Br J Cancer (1988) 58:355–8.[ISI][Medline]
7 Sun CC, Bodurka DC, Donato ML, et al. Patient preferences regarding side effects of chemotherapy for ovarian cancer: do they change over time? Gynecol Oncol (2005) 87:118–28.[CrossRef]
8 Brundage MD, Davidson JR, Mackillop WJ. Trading treatment toxicity for survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol (1997) 15:330–40.
9 Silvestri G, Pritchard R, Welch HG. Preferences for chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: descriptive study based on scripted interviews. BMJ (1998) 317:771–5.
10 Simes RJ, Coates AS. Patient preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: how much benefit is needed? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr (2001) 30:146–152.
11 Shin HR, Jung JK, Won YJ, Park JG. 139 KCCR-affiliated Hospitals. 2002 annual report of the Korea Central Cancer Registry: based on registered data from 139 hospitals. Cancer Res Treat (2004) 36:103–14.
12 Novack DH, Plumer R, Smith RL, et al. Changes in physicians' attitudes toward telling the cancer patient. JAMA (1979) 241:897–900.[Abstract]
13 Han SW, Chung HY, Han SH. A study on the attitudes toward dying patients. J Korean Neuropsychiatry Assoc (1990) 29:1408–25.
14 Braddock CH III, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA (1999) 282:2313–20.
15 Gattellari M, Voigt KJ, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. When the treatment goal is not cure: are cancer patients equipped to make informed decisions? J Clin Oncol (2002) 20:503–13.
16 Koedoot CG, De Haes JC, Heisterkamp SH, Bakker PJ, De Graeff A, De Haan RJ. Palliative chemotherapy or watchful waiting? A vignettes study among oncologists. J Clin Oncol (2002) 20:3658–64.
17 Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Ann Intern Med (1980) 92:832–6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
18 Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med (1999) 341:992–6.
19 Rothman KJ, Michels KB. The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med (1994) 331:394–8.
20 Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med (2000) 133:455–63.
21 Ellison NM, Chevlen EM. Palliative chemotherapy. In: Principles and Practice of Palliative Care and Supportive Oncology—Berger AM, Portenoy RK, Weissman DE, eds. (2002) 2nd. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. 698–702.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||