RESUMO
Purpose: A cancer diagnosis is an overwhelming process for both patients and doctors. Many studies have addressed doctors' opinions and knowledge regarding breaking bad news (BBN). However, scarce knowledge exists regarding patients' perspectives for communicating bad news. Therefore, the current study aims to assess cancer patient preferences and satisfaction about BBN. Patients and Methods: This is a mixed methods study consisting of two phases; an in-depth interview and cross-sectional quantitative analysis. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data to explore patients' satisfaction and preferences about BBN. For quantitative analyses, the overall satisfaction was calculated as satisfaction percent. Bivariate analyses were performed, and statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. Quality function deployment was used to effectively define patient requirements of highest priority. Results: Thematic analysis revealed two main themes. Theme 1; patients' requirements for BBN and theme 2; patients' reaction at the time of diagnosis with their categories. For the quantitative part, a total of 222 patients responded to the survey, females made up 70% of the sample. Satisfaction score percent ranged from 25.5 to 100%, with a mean of 82.7±11.9%. The most preferred items were mainly concerned with the doctor being honest and encouraging, good listener and interacting giving simple smooth explanations without using medical terms, and empathetic (average score 4.8/5). Also, providing the diagnosis in a calm and private environment (4.7/5). Analysis also found that the requirements for improvement included providing a written summary after receiving the diagnosis and patient perception assessed by the doctor before telling the diagnosis. Conclusion: Communicating bad news effectively is crucial in the management of cancer patients. The process of BBN should be patient-centered, focusing on patients' needs. Thus, the current study has demonstrated the patients' preferences and the requirements, which should be incorporated into BBN protocols.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) has a well-recognized role in the treatment of leukemia and small-cell lung cancer. Clinical utility has yet to be determined for breast cancer, where an emerging group at high risk of brain metastasis has fuelled consideration of PCI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In reviewing our experience with PCI as part of a complex protocol for advanced breast cancer, we present descriptive data on late central nervous system outcomes in those receiving PCI. After high-dose anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, Stage IIIB/IV breast cancer responders underwent tandem autologous marrow transplantation. Those in continued remission were referred for PCI. Whole-brain radiotherapy was delivered by usual means, at 36 Gy in 20 fractions. RESULTS: Twenty-four women, with median age 45 (28-61), were enrolled between 1995 and 1998. Disease was largely metastatic (79%), and 75% were previously exposed to chemotherapy or hormonotherapy. Ten patients received PCI, at a median of 13.4 (11.8-16.5) months from study entry. Six patients developed brain metastases, 2 despite PCI. Striking functional decline was documented in 3 patients (at 9 months, 4 years, and 5 years post-PCI), including one previously high-functioning woman requiring full care for posttreatment dementia. CONCLUSIONS: We present a series of advanced breast cancer patients treated prophylactically with whole-brain radiotherapy following an aggressive chemotherapy regimen. Although the therapeutic benefit of PCI is not ascertainable here, we describe brain metastases occurring despite PCI and serious long-term neurobehavioral sequelae in PCI-treated patients. Any further investigation of PCI in high-risk breast cancer will need to be approached with caution.
