Therapeutic aims of drugs offering only progression-free survival are misunderstood by patients, and oncologists may be overly optimistic about likely benefits.

PURPOSE: The use of novel and often expensive drugs offering limited survival benefit in advanced disease is controversial. Treatment recommendations are influenced by patient characteristics and trial data showing overall response rates (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PFS is frequently the primary outcome in licencing studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As part of a longitudinal study Assessing the 'VALue' to patients of PROgression Free Survival (AVALPROFS), oncologists completed checklists at baseline following consultations with patients. Questions probed perceived clinical benefits of the drugs to populations in general. Patients completed study-specific interview schedules at baseline, 6 weeks into treatment, and at withdrawal due to toxicity or progression. Patients also completed tumour- and treatment-specific quality of life questionnaires monthly for their time in the study. Only baseline results are reported here. RESULTS: Thirty-two UK oncologists discussed management options with 90 patients with heterogeneous advanced cancers. Oncologists' estimates of medical benefit in general from treatment varied between 10 and 80 %. They expected 46/90 (51 %) of their patients to derive some clinical benefit from the prescribed treatment but were either unsure or expected none for 44/90 (49 %). Predictions of life expectancy were variable but 62 % (56/90) of patients were expected to survive longer with treatment. A majority of patients 51/90 (57 %) had 'no idea' or were 'unclear' what PFS meant and 45/90 (50 %) thought extension of life was the primary therapeutic aim of treatment. CONCLUSION: Discussions between doctors and patients with metastatic disease about future management plans and likely therapeutic gains are challenging. Factors influencing decisions about putative benefits of novel drugs are often applied inconsistently can be overly optimistic and may even contradict published data.

No man's land: information needs and resources of men with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer.

The majority of men treated for prostate cancer will eventually develop castrate-resistant disease (CRPC) with metastases (mCRPC). There are several options for further treatment: chemotherapy, third-line hormone therapy, radium, immunotherapy, and palliation. Current ASCO guidelines for survivors of prostate cancer recommend that an individual's information needs at all stages of disease are assessed and that patients are provided with or referred to the appropriate sources for information and support. Earlier reviews have highlighted the dearth of such services and we wished to see if the situation had improved more recently. Unfortunately, we conclude that there is still a lack of good-quality congruent information easily accessible specifically for men with mCRPC and insufficient data regarding the risks, harms, and benefits of different management plans. More research providing a clear evidence base about treatment consequences using patient reported outcome measures is required.

Teams Talking Trials: results of an RCT to improve the communication of cancer teams about treatment trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that communication between members of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is often suboptimal and communication about trials between MDTs and their patients is difficult. Educational interventions can help dyadic exchanges with different aspects of trial recruitment but less work has focussed on team interventions. METHODS: 22 multidisciplinary cancer teams in the UK participated in an RCT of a novel Teams Talking Trials (TTT) Workshop aimed at improving the following: awareness, involvement, communication and recruitment to cancer trials. MDTs were randomised following either 6 or 12 months of audits, which were repeated after the intervention. Audits included numbers approached about trials, team members' attitudes, involvement and awareness of their teams' trial portfolios. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of approaching patients about trials post workshop (estimated improvement 22% higher regression coefficient of 0.2, exp. (0.2)=1.22). There was improvement in team members' involvement in trials in 4 areas (p≤0.04): the pressure to enter patients into RCTs, the likelihood of a start-up meeting to discuss a newly accepted trial, the informational role played by individuals and recognition of this HCP's role by other team members. Also, confidence in communication about RCTS increased and awareness of different aspects of trial management improved on all 14 aspects (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Attendance by teams at focussed workshops designed to enhance communication and trial recruitment improved several aspects of team functioning, but a significant impact on the number of patients approached could not be demonstrated.

Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature.

Phase 1 (P1) trials are vital to the development of cancer treatments; however, the patients involved in these trials are unlikely to receive any therapeutic benefit, and there are significant possibilities that they will experience serious side effects. Ethical requirements stipulate that patients must be adequately informed before they consent to participate in P1 trials. This review focuses on studies that have measured patient comprehension of information given during the informed consent process of P1 cancer trials. Patients consenting to participate in P1 trials currently have a limited understanding of trial purpose, an unrealistic expectation of the benefits and risks associated with trial participation and a questionable appreciation of their right to abstain or withdraw. Health care professionals recruiting to P1 trials need clear and practical guidelines and training packages designed to ensure that all details of P1 trials are communicated effectively to eligible patients.

Truth may hurt but deceit hurts more: communication in palliative care.

Healthcare professionals often censor their information giving to patients in an attempt to protect them from potentially hurtful, sad or bad news. There is a commonly expressed belief that what people do not know does not harm them. Analysis of doctor and nurse/patient interactions reveals that this well-intentioned but misguided assumption about human behaviour is present at all stages of cancer care. Less than honest disclosure is seen from the moment that a patient reports symptoms, to the confirmation of diagnosis, during discussions about the therapeutic benefits of treatment, at relapse and terminal illness. This desire to shield patients from the reality of their situation usually creates even greater difficulties for patients, their relatives and friends and other members of the healthcare team. Although the motivation behind economy with the truth is often well meant, a conspiracy of silence usually results in a heightened state of fear, anxiety and confusion--not one of calm and equanimity. Ambiguous or deliberately misleading information may afford short-term benefits while things continue to go well, but denies individuals and their families opportunities to reorganize and adapt their lives towards the attainment of more achievable goals, realistic hopes and aspirations. In this paper, some examples and consequences of accidental, deliberate, if well-meaning, attempts to disguise the truth from patients, taken verbatim from interviews, are given, together with cases of unintentional deception or misunderstandings created by the use of ambiguous language. We also provide evidence from research studies showing that although truth hurts, deceit may well hurt more. 'I think the best physician is the one who has the providence to tell to the patients according to his knowledge the present situation, what has happened before, and what is going to happen in the future' (Hippocrates).

Are members of multidisciplinary teams in breast cancer aware of each other's informational roles?

AIM: To conduct a commissioned survey of multidisciplinary breast team members' expectations of their own and each other's roles in providing different kinds of information to women with breast cancer. DESIGN: Questionnaire based survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Health professionals from five multidisciplinary breast care centres within a Sussex health authority. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interdisciplinary awareness of informational roles played by different team members. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of the team survey suggest that, in most cases, health professionals fulfilled the roles expected of them by the team, with two or three individuals identified as the main providers of information for each topic. However, many more professionals were involved in major discussions without the team's knowledge. The professional consistently playing a major "unseen" role was the breast nurse specialist.

How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?

As part of a larger study designed to improve doctor-patient communication in randomised clinical trials (RCT), we audiotaped the discussions between doctor and patient in which consent was being obtained for a RCT. This paper reports on 82 discussions conducted by 5 clinical oncologists in both District General and University Hospital outpatient departments. When introducing the subject of trials, uncertainty about treatment decisions was expressed by the doctors in the majority of cases (79, 96.3%). This was most often stated in a general sense (78, 95.1%), but some mentioned personal uncertainty (12, 14.6%), an approach which helps to maintain a trusting doctor-patient relationship. The word randomization was mentioned in 51 (62.2%) consultations, although the process itself was usually described implicitly (78, 95.1%), e.g. by telling the patient that they would be allocated either one or other treatment. Analogies were used in 28 (34.1%) cases to describe the randomisation process. In addition, although treatments and side-effects were described frequently, (68, 82.9%) and (72, 87.8%) respectively, information leaflets about the trials were not given to 23 (28%) patients. The study shows that U.K. clinicians adopt individual methods when providing information and eliciting consent to trials.

High dose folic acid treatment of fragile (X) males.

We conducted an experimental trial of high-dose folic acid given to five males, ages 8 to 26 years, with the fra(X) syndrome. In this double blind study, each subject received 250 mg per day of folic acid for 3 months, followed by placebo for 3 months, and folic acid again for an additional three months. Based on IQ tests, behavior ratings, the Autistic Descriptors Checklist, and parental ratings, there was little evidence to suggest any positive effects seen during the administration of high-dose folic acid. Therefore, this study has provided little support for a hypothesis of benefit of high-dose folic acid in the treatment of the fra(X) syndrome.