Prognostic Understanding, Goals of Care, and Quality of Life in Hospitalized Patients with Leukemia or Multiple Myeloma.

Background: Prior studies reveal a lack of illness understanding and prognostic awareness among patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated prognostic awareness and illness understanding among patients with acute leukemia and multiple myeloma (MM) and measured patient-hematologist discordance. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with acute leukemia and MM at Mount Sinai Hospital or Yale New Haven Hospital between August 2015 and February 2020. Patients were administered a survey assessing prognostic awareness, goals of care (GOC), and quality of life. Hematologists completed a similar survey for each patient. We assessed discordance across the cohort of patients and hematologists using the likelihood-ratio chi-square test and within patient-hematologist pairs using the kappa (κ) statistic. Results: We enrolled 185 patients (137 with leukemia and 48 with MM) and 29 hematologists. Among patients, 137 (74%) self-identified as White, 27 (15%) as Black, and 21 (11%) as Hispanic. Across the entire cohort, patients were significantly more optimistic about treatment goals compared with hematologists (p = 0.027). Within patient-hematologist pairs, hematologists were significantly more optimistic than patients with respect to line of treatment (κ = 0.03). For both leukemia and MM cohorts, patients were significantly more likely to respond "don't know" or deferring to a faith-based response with 88 (64%) and 34 (71%), respectively, compared with only 28 (20%) and 11 (23%) of hematologists, respectively. Conclusions: We observed significant discordance regarding prognosis and GOC among patients with hematological malignancies and their hematologists. These data support future interventions to improve prognostic understanding among this patient population to facilitate informed treatment choices.

Prognostic communication about lung cancer in the precision oncology era: A multiple-perspective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with cancer prefer to know their prognosis, prognostic communication between oncologists and patients is often insufficient. Targeted therapies for lung cancer improve survival yet are not curative and produce variable responses. This study sought to describe how oncologists communicate about prognosis with patients receiving targeted therapies for lung cancer. METHODS: This qualitative study included 39 patients with advanced lung cancer with targetable mutations, 14 caregivers, and 10 oncologists. Semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers and focus groups or interviews with oncologists were conducted to explore their experiences with prognostic communication. One oncology follow-up visit was audio-recorded per patient. A framework approach was used to analyze interview transcripts, and a content analysis of patient-oncologist dialogue was conducted. Themes were identified within each source and then integrated across sources to create a multidimensional description of prognostic communication. RESULTS: Six themes in prognostic communication were identified: Patients with targetable mutations develop a distinct identity in the lung cancer community that affects their information-seeking and self-advocacy; oncologists set high expectations for targeted therapy; the uncertain availability of new therapies complicates prognostic discussions; patients and caregivers have variable information preferences; patients raise questions about progression by asking about physical symptoms or scan results; and patients' expectations of targeted therapy influence their medical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Optimistic patient-oncologist communication shapes the expectations of patients receiving targeted therapy for lung cancer and affects their decision-making. Further research and clinical guidance are needed to help oncologists to communicate uncertain outcomes effectively.

Prostate cancer treatment modalities and survival outcomes: a comparative analysis of Falmouth Hospital versus Massachusetts and nationwide hospitals.

Treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer has been termed a model of "preference-sensitive" health care. Because there is no documented consensus supporting any one of the primary treatment modalities-surgery, external beam radiation, and brachytherapy-over the others, patient and physician preferences can significantly influence treatment approach. This can lead to substantial variation in treatment practices at the level of individual hospitals. In this context, it is informative for individual hospitals, especially small community hospitals that lack substantial quality assurance resources, to compare their prostate cancer care to that provided by cohort groups of hospitals. This study compares prostate cancer treatment modalities at Falmouth Hospital (FH), a 95-bed community hospital located in Falmouth, Massachusetts, to those at hospitals in 3 cohort groups: 1) US hospitals of all types, 2) Massachusetts hospitals of all types, and 3) Massachusetts community hospitals. It also compares survival outcomes for FH prostate cancer patients to national averages. All data for these comparisons were obtained from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) Hospital Comparison Benchmark Reports and Survival Reports applications. This study's main finding is that FH performed markedly less surgery and more radiation, specifically brachytherapy, than the cohort groups of hospitals. This distribution of treatment modalities was not solely attributable to FH's older than average patient population. Studies similar to this one could be conducted by other community hospitals to inform quality assessment programs for prostate cancer care.