Category: Quality of Life

Posted on

Understanding Palliative Care

— And when it may help

By Dr. Rachel L. Ombres AHN

Caring for people with serious illnesses or chronic conditions is one of health care’s most complicated — and important — challenges.

While medicine continues to improve the way we treat diseases such as cancer or heart failure, it doesn’t always do a great job of caring for the things that matter most to patients and their families, such as physical and emotional distress.

And despite their frequent visits to doctors and hospitals, people living with serious medical conditions may still have unaddressed symptoms like pain or fatigue, and often report poor communication about those symptoms with their health care providers.

In other words, medicine is pretty great at treating the disease — but not as good at caring for the whole person.

That’s where palliative care specialists enter the picture, helping people live and feel better throughout the course of a serious illness.

Palliative care is a growing field of medicine that focuses on helping patients and their families cope with the physical and emotional stressors of advancing health problems. There is strong evidence that palliative care not only can improve quality of life for seriously ill patients, but also may reduce avoidable hospital admissions and enable patients to spend more time at home doing what matters most to them.

What is palliative care?

Palliative care focuses on providing people with relief from the symptoms and stressors of serious illnesses, such as cancer, chronic heart or lung disease, dementia, neurologic diseases like Parkinson’s, chronic liver disease, kidney failure, and many others.

Delivered by a specialty-trained team of doctors, nurses, social workers and other clinicians, palliative care provides expertise in symptom management, care coordination and communication, with the goal of improving quality of life for both the patient and their loved ones. Palliative care is appropriate for people at any age, and any stage of a serious illness.

Importantly, palliative care is not the same thing as hospice.

While palliative care is led by clinicians specifically trained in that field, it’s provided in collaboration with other health care providers, including primary care doctors and specialists — and, unlike hospice care, it can be administered at the same time that the patient is receiving curative treatment, and at any stage of serious illness from the time of initial diagnosis.

A person with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, for example, might benefit from palliative care, as would a person with lung disease seeking a lung transplant. In fact, when people facing a serious illness receive palliative care early in their disease and alongside treatment for their underlying condition, evidence demonstrates that it may even prolong survival.

Unfortunately, the historical misunderstanding about palliative care’s association with hospice — and the general lack of awareness about palliative medicine as a specialty, even among providers — means that millions of people who could benefit from palliative care don’t get it.

Worldwide, only about 14% of people who need palliative care currently receive it, according to the World Health Organization.

Where can I receive palliative care?

Palliative care is provided in all settings. To best meet the needs of their patients, palliative care teams see people in the hospital, outpatient clinics, nursing facilities — and even in the comfort of their own homes.

Providing home and community-based palliative care is not only convenient for patients and their families, but it also aims to reduce certain complications of advanced illness that would otherwise require emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

The benefits — patients who feel better, have fewer unnecessary hospitalizations and have more support during stressful times — are attractive to patients, families and insurers alike. As a result, insurance providers such as Medicare are changing the way they reimburse for home-based palliative services, while health systems and other agencies are actively expanding access to palliative care across Pennsylvania and nationwide.

Today, there are more options than ever for home- and community-based palliative care.

How palliative care can help: One patient’s story

Barbara had just retired from a career in management at a local grocery store. She looked forward to the added time retirement would give her to do what mattered most, like spend time with her family and tend to her garden.

Unfortunately, a new cancer diagnosis thwarted these plans, and she was soon spending more time in the chemotherapy suite than with her grandchildren or her prized perennials. Barbara’s pain and fatigue prevented her from being active outside and limited her appetite.

When her primary care provider referred her to palliative care, Barbara was unsure what to expect.

The palliative physician suggested several interventions to help Barbara feel and function better, including medication changes and gentle exercise techniques, and provided additional resources for her family. The palliative care team also helped Barbara understand her care options and encouraged her to speak up about her preferences to her other health care providers and to her loved ones, so that everyone was on the same page about supporting her goals.

In time, these interventions helped lessen Barbara’s symptoms and streamline her care. Throughout her cancer journey, the palliative care team has remained a constant layer of support for Barbara and her family. With close attention to her goals and symptoms, the palliative care team helps Barbara live as well as possible, despite having a serious illness.

If you or a loved one has a serious medical condition, ask your doctor or insurance provider about a referral to palliative care.

Posted on

Cancer patients often want ‘one more round.’

— Should doctors say no?

Studies show that when cancer returns, patients are often quite willing to receive toxic treatments that offer minimal potential benefit.

By by Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD

My patient was in his early 30s and his leukemia had returned again following yet another round of treatment.

He was a poster child for the recently reported rise in cancer rates in the young, and had just asked me what chemotherapy cocktail I could devise for him next, to try to rid him of his cancer.

I hesitated before answering. Oncologists are notorious for always being willing to recommend to our patients one more course of treatment, even when the chances of success are negligible.

One grim joke even poses the question, “Why are coffins nailed shut?” The answer: “To keep oncologists from giving another round of chemotherapy.”

This unflattering stereotype is unfortunately backed by data. In one analysis of patients with a cancer diagnosis treated at one of 280 cancer clinics in the United States between 2011 and 2020, 39 percent received cancer therapy within 30 days of death, and 17 percent within two weeks of dying, with no decrease in those rates from 2015 to 2019.

My patient had received his leukemia diagnosis five years earlier, and initially, following chemotherapy, his cancer had entered a remission. He and his parents were farmers from Latin America and relocated at the time to the United States to focus on his treatment. When the leukemia returned after a year, he underwent a bone-marrow transplant, and that seemed to do the trick, at least for a while.

But then it reared its ugly head a couple of years later, and we worked to slay it with yet more chemotherapy and another transplant.

That victory was short-lived, though, and multiple rounds of unsuccessful treatment later, here we were. The last course had decimated his blood counts, landing him in the hospital with an infection, a bad one that he had barely survived.

Does it help patients live longer or better?

Giving chemotherapy toward the end of life would be justifiable if we benefited our patients by enabling them to live longer, or live better. While that’s our hope, it often isn’t the case.

Other studies have shown that patients with cancer who receive treatment at the end of life are more likely to be admitted to the hospital and even the intensive care unit, less likely to have meaningful goals-of-care discussions with their health-care team, and have worse quality and duration of life.

Recognizing this, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has identified giving chemotherapy within two weeks of death as a poor-quality indicator that may adversely affect payments to hospitals. As a consequence, cancer doctors are discouraged from offering treatment to patients at the end of life, and can get in trouble with hospital administrators for doing so.

Despite the CMS measure, though, over the past three years the percentage of patients treated at the end of life hasn’t changed much, with one recent study actually showing an increase in patients treated.

Why do we do it? Perhaps optimism is part of our nature, and what draws us to a career in oncology. I focus on the positive, and that may actually help my patients. Other studies have shown that optimism in people with cancer is associated with better quality of life, and even longer survival.

And perhaps the data on giving chemotherapy close to a person’s last days on Earth, and the CMS quality metric, are unfair, and insensitive to the realities of how doctors and patients make decisions.

I stared back into the eyes of my young patient and then into those of his father, who was about my age. He looked kindly, with a thick, bushy white mustache, a red tattersall shirt, and work jeans. This man adored his son, accompanying him to every appointment, and always warmly clasped my right hand with both of his in thanks for our medical care — a gesture I felt unworthy to receive, given my inability to eradicate his son’s leukemia.

If our roles were reversed, how would I react if my son’s cancer doctor told me that the option for more chemotherapy was off the table, as CMS recommends, given the less than 10 percent chance that it would work, and the much higher likelihood that it could harm?

Wouldn’t I demand that the doctor pursue any and all means necessary to save my son’s life? Patients often do, and studies have shown that patients with cancer that has returned are quite willing to receive toxic cancer treatments that promise minimal potential benefit.

We discussed giving another round of chemotherapy, though I told my patient and his family that I was reluctant to administer it given the vanishingly slim chance that it would help. We also talked about my patient enrolling in a clinical trial of an experimental drug. And finally, we talked about palliative care and hospice, my preferred path forward.

“You’ve given us a lot to think about,” my patient told me as he and his family got up to leave, even smiling a bit at the understatement. His father came over to me and clasped my hand warmly, as usual.

But a couple of days later, despite how well he looked in clinic, my patient developed an infection that landed him in the intensive care unit. If I had given him chemotherapy, we would have blamed the treatment for the hospitalization.

But the cause actually lay with his underlying cancer, which had compromised his immune system, making him more vulnerable to infections. This time, my patient became sick enough that he decided enough was enough, and he accepted palliative care.

For many of my patients at the end of life who doggedly pursue that “one more round” of chemotherapy, a hospitalization becomes the sentinel event convincing them that the side effects of treatment just aren’t worth it anymore. It’s then no wonder people die so soon after their final treatment and time in the hospital.

It isn’t justifiable to give people with cancer chemotherapy when it is futile, just to be able to say “we tried something.” That’s what the CMS quality metric is trying to prevent. But in doing so, it shouldn’t interfere with a patient’s opportunity to come to that decision themselves.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Many Patients Don’t Survive End-Stage Poverty

By Lindsay Ryan

He has an easy smile, blue eyes and a life-threatening bone infection in one arm. Grateful for treatment, he jokes with the medical intern each morning. A friend, a fellow doctor, is supervising the man’s care. We both work as internists at a public hospital in the medical safety net, a loose term for institutions that disproportionately serve patients on Medicaid or without insurance. You could describe the safety net in another way, too, as a place that holds up a mirror to our nation.

What is reflected can be difficult to face. It’s this: After learning that antibiotics aren’t eradicating his infection and amputation is the only chance for cure, the man withdraws, says barely a word to the intern. When she asks what he’s thinking, his reply is so tentative that she has to prompt him to repeat himself. Now with a clear voice, he tells her that if his arm must be amputated, he doesn’t want to live. She doesn’t understand what it’s like to survive on the streets, he continues. With a disability, he’ll be a target — robbed, assaulted. He’d rather die, unless, he says later, someone can find him a permanent apartment. In that case, he’ll proceed with the amputation.

The psychiatrists evaluate him. He’s not suicidal. His reasoning is logical. The social workers search for rooms, but in San Francisco far more people need long-term rehousing than the available units can accommodate. That the medical care the patient is receiving exceeds the cost of a year’s rent makes no practical difference. Eventually, the palliative care doctors see him. He transitions to hospice and dies.

A death certificate would say he died of sepsis from a bone infection, but my friend and I have a term for the illness that killed him: end-stage poverty. We needed to coin a phrase because so many of our patients die of the same thing.

Safety-net hospitals and clinics care for a population heavily skewed toward the poor, recent immigrants and people of color. The budgets of these places are forever tight. And anyone who works in them could tell you that illness in our patients isn’t just a biological phenomenon. It’s the manifestation of social inequality in people’s bodies.

Neglecting this fact can make otherwise meticulous care fail. That’s why, on one busy night, a medical student on my team is scouring websites and LinkedIn. She’s not shirking her duties. In fact, she’s one of the best students I’ve ever taught.

This week she’s caring for a retired low-wage worker with strokes and likely early dementia who was found sleeping in the street. He abandoned his rent-controlled apartment when electrolyte and kidney problems triggered a period of severe confusion that has since been resolved. Now, with little savings, he has nowhere to go. A respite center can receive patients like him when it has vacancies. The alternative is a shelter bed. He’s nearly 90 years old.

Medical textbooks usually don’t discuss fixing your patient’s housing. They seldom include making sure your patient has enough food and some way to get to a clinic. But textbooks miss what my med students don’t: that people die for lack of these basics.

People struggle to keep wounds clean. Their medications get stolen. They sicken from poor diet, undervaccination and repeated psychological trauma. Forced to focus on short-term survival and often lacking cellphones, they miss appointments for everything from Pap smears to chemotherapy. They fall ill in myriad ways — and fall through the cracks in just as many.

Early in his hospitalization, our retired patient mentions a daughter, from whom he’s been estranged for years. He doesn’t know any contact details, just her name. It’s a long shot, but we wonder if she can take him in.

The med student has one mission: find her.

I love reading about medical advances. I’m blown away that with a brain implant, a person who’s paralyzed can move a robotic arm and that surgeons recently transplanted a genetically modified pig kidney into a man on dialysis. This is the best of American innovation and cause for celebration. But breakthroughs like these won’t fix the fact that despite spending the highest percentage of its G.D.P. on health care among O.E.C.D. nations, the United States has a life expectancy years lower than comparable nations—the U.K. and Canada— and a rate of preventable death far higher.

The solution to that problem is messy, incremental, protean and inglorious. It requires massive investment in housing, addiction treatment, free and low-barrier health care and social services. It calls for just as much innovation in the social realm as in the biomedical, for acknowledgment that inequities — based on race, class, primary language and other categories — mediate how disease becomes embodied. If health care is interpreted in the truest sense of caring for people’s health, it must be a practice that extends well beyond the boundaries of hospitals and clinics.

Meanwhile, on the ground, we make do. Though the social workers are excellent and try valiantly, there are too few of them, both in my hospital and throughout a country that devalues and underfunds their profession. And so the medical student spends hours helping the family of a newly arrived Filipino immigrant navigate the health insurance system. Without her efforts, he wouldn’t get treatment for acute hepatitis C. Another patient, who is in her 20s, can’t afford rent after losing her job because of repeated hospitalizations for pancreatitis — but she can’t get the pancreatic operation she needs without a home in which to recuperate. I phone an eviction defense lawyer friend; the young woman eventually gets surgery.

Sorting out housing and insurance isn’t the best use of my skill set or that of the medical students and residents, but our efforts can be rewarding. The internet turned up the work email of the daughter of the retired man. Her house was a little cramped with his grandchildren, she said, but she would make room. The medical student came in beaming.

In these cases we succeeded; in many others we don’t. Safety-net hospitals can feel like the rapids foreshadowing a waterfall, the final common destination to which people facing inequities are swept by forces beyond their control. We try our hardest to fish them out, but sometimes we can’t do much more than toss them a life jacket or maybe a barrel and hope for the best.

I used to teach residents about the principles of internal medicine — sodium disturbances, delirium management, antibiotics. I still do, but these days I also teach about other topics — tapping community resources, thinking creatively about barriers and troubleshooting how our patients can continue to get better after leaving the supports of the hospital.

When we debrief, residents tell me how much they struggle with the moral dissonance of working in a system in which the best medicine they can provide often falls short. They’re right about how much it hurts, so I don’t know exactly what to say to them. Perhaps I never will.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

As doctors, we are failing to put patients’ needs first, causing harm at the end of life

— Doctors including Zachary Tait and Rupal Shah, and recently bereaved readers Jo Fisher and Rebecca Howling, respond to Adrian Chiles’s column on how his father spent two of the last days of his life alone and distressed in A&E, for no good reason

‘As a junior doctor working in A&E, I loathed watching frail, mostly older people languish on trolleys in corridors.’

My condolences to Adrian Chiles on the death of his father. His column describing the futility of his father’s last “precautionary” trip to A&E (3 April) highlights a rising challenge of the ageing population. As health and social care services collapse, the harms and indignities of hospital admission increase, especially for those least able to advocate for themselves. As a junior doctor working in A&E, I loathed watching frail, mostly older people languish on trolleys in corridors, receiving substandard treatment that they didn’t want and were unlikely to benefit from. This is now the norm in every hospital I’ve been to.

A 2014 study showed that more than a quarter of hospital inpatients die within a year. The risk, perhaps unsurprisingly, increases with age. It is our responsibility as clinicians to have difficult and frank conversations with patients ahead of time; to be pragmatic, realistic and kind in our decision-making. Unfortunately, lots of this comes under “planning for the future”, which tends to slip down the to-do list during a crisis. It is the single most rewarding part of my work to have the time and opportunity to make care plans with patients, to know what matters most to them, and to stop the “shrugs” that Chiles faced at every turn. But medicine-by-protocol is quicker and cheaper than thought and pragmatism, so as resources are stretched ever further, it may continue to flourish. I am so sad for Peter Chiles’s distress, and so grateful that his son uses his voice to call attention to it.
Zachary Tait
Manchester

I have been a GP partner in Battersea, London, for 20 years. Unfortunately, Adrian Chiles’s opinion piece absolutely resonates. As clinicians, we are now taught to prioritise “safety” over all other considerations – despite the dangers inherent in doing so. Really, we are often protecting ourselves more than we are protecting our patients – an inadvertent side-effect of our unforgiving regulatory system.

We doctors are behaving as “artificial persons” who represent the healthcare system, and not as moral agents who have a duty to create meaning with our patients. We urgently need to move into a moral era of medicine – one that rejects both the protectionism of the past and the reductionism of the current context, which so often results in the cruelties and inefficiencies that Chiles describes.
Rupal Shah
Co-author, Fighting for the Soul of General Practice – The Algorithm Will See You Now

Adrian Chiles’s article stirred my thinking, as I have been on a similar journey. My husband died two weeks ago, having been advised that he had three months to live. This proved to be the case. With the Hospice at Home service, the NHS was truly wonderful. He died, however, with morphine slowly killing him. This could have been prevented if an assisted dying law was in place. One of the nurses said that what we were doing was cruel.

We were able to resist a possible hospital admission for chest pains by having what is called a ReSPECT document signed by our GP for “do not resuscitate”, and because we had an advance directive, dated 2022, that had been placed with the GP and was on his medical records. This made the whole process so much easier for us, but also for the various wonderful medics. Parliament needs to update our laws to align with so many in this country who wish for greater clarity and support Dignity in Dying.
Jo Fisher
Brampton, Cambridgeshire

In response to Adrian Chiles’s article, and having recently lost my own father, the best advice I can offer anyone is to make sure you have power of attorney in place for your parents. That is the way you can ensure that you have the power to override the decisions of medical staff who, while acting with the best intentions, will not know your parents as well as you do and may not make the decision that is best for them, or what they would have wanted. Having a power of attorney in place is more important than a will, in my view, because it enables you to help your living parent and ensure that their wishes are complied with. In my father’s final days, I was asked numerous times: “Do you have power of attorney?” I was very relieved to be able to answer: “Yes.”
Rebecca Howling
Toft, Cambridgeshire

As the daughter of an elderly parent, I very much understand the need for A&E avoidance, to cause least distress. No doubt waiting haplessly alone for many hours hastens demise. However, as a GP, I know that the huge increase in litigation over the last 20 years is a very real threat to doctors’ livelihoods. Even a simple complaint from a patient or their family can cause weeks, months, sometimes years, of stress to a health professional. Ruminating over every decision, every action or inaction, every justification, is enough to give us a heart attack – or worse, to make us follow in the footsteps of Paul Sinha and Adam Kay and quit the profession for a more peaceful existence.
Name and address supplied

Dear Adrian, I am so sorry that this happened to your dad. Sadly, it is a story repeated again and again. I am what is termed a “late career” doctor (over 55), and I recently transitioned from working as an emergency consultant to become a GP working in aged care. Over my 30-year career, mainly in emergency and other hospital specialities, although including a significant period in palliative care, I slowly came to appreciate that the way we have set up our emergency system doesn’t serve older people at all, and the frailest elderly are generally so poorly served that transferring them almost inevitably makes things worse.

My residents (200 across five aged care facilities) all have discussion and documentation of whether they should go to hospital and under what circumstances. The staff know to call me if there is any uncertainty, day or night. I do lots of family meetings so relatives can feel confident that the right decisions will be made. I love looking after old people and ensuring they get the best care that is right for their individual circumstances.

I firmly believe that aged care in particular is a GP subspecialty of its own. Too often care is fitted into lunch breaks and “on the way home” visits, and devolved to phone services out of hours. This is no way to treat our oldest and frailest, who deserve so much better. Again, I am so sorry.
Fiona Wallace
Sheffield, Tasmania, Australia

I read Adrian Chiles’s article about his father’s experience with empathy. My own father led a district health authority, with many hospitals under his care. He was intensely proud of the NHS, but in his 90s he was very clear that he didn’t wish to die in hospital or even to be admitted again unless absolutely essential. If he had an infection, he would be treated at home. Should it worsen and Dad die, it would be in his own bed. As a family, we listened. I was caring for him and know it took a huge weight off Dad’s mind to know that he need not dread the ambulance or the bewilderment of a strange place. Too many elderly people die in the back of ambulances and in A&E. Let those who are able to do so make informed choices about their end of life. It is a great comfort to them.
Dr Jane Lovell
Ashford, Kent

Adrian Chiles is correct that decisions about sending frail and elderly patients to hospital can be due to doctors being risk-averse. Doctors face a double jeopardy from the General Medical Council, who can take their livelihood, and the legal system if things go wrong.

Not all families can accept when beloved elderly relatives have reached the end of their life. Some people have unrealistic expectations about what healthcare can achieve in frail patients, and push for investigations and treatments even when it seems unlikely to affect the final outcome. If these are not performed, doctors can be accused of negligence or ageism. Most doctors would like less invasive healthcare at the end of life for themselves and their own families than they routinely offer to patients.

I would encourage everyone to write an advance directive or “living will” outlining how they would like to be treated in the event of their health deteriorating. I would also suggest giving a trusted person power of attorney for healthcare. These can be very helpful in reducing incidents like the one described in the article.
Dr Stephen Docherty
Consultant radiologist, Dundee

I would like to express my condolences to Adrian Chiles on the death of his father. I can empathise with him on many levels. I too lost my father recently in not dissimilar circumstances. I am a practising GP, a former medical director of an out-of-hours GP service, and now spend most of time as a management consultant trying to influence change in the NHS to stop incidents like this happening.

When I talk to clinicians and managers, I am always humbled by their devotion despite the pressures they work under. In my current assignment, over 32% of clinicians feel they are burnt out, and many more express intense frustration with the low-value clinical work they undertake. There is a limit to how much the system and the individuals who prop it up can give. The demand for care is rising every year.

I suspect that the GP who decided to send Adrian’s father to A&E without seeing him was under pressure to make a number of decisions that night. Given more choice, I’m sure they would have prioritised cases such as Adrian’s father over lower-priority, often unnecessary cases. What we do not discuss as a society with as much fervour as the system and those who provide care is how we consume care, so we can create time and space to support those who really need necessary attention.
Dr Riaz Jetha
London

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Ending cancer treatment to focus on living

Alicia Mathlin

Alicia Mathlin felt like her body was no longer hers after several rounds of debilitating cancer treatment — so she decided to stop and focus on living her life. Matt Galloway talks to Mathlin about that decision and asks medical experts about the push for ‘common-sense oncology,’ which weighs the pros and cons of certain treatments against a patient’s quality of life.

Matt Galloway cuts through a sea of choice to bring you stories that transcend the news cycle and expand your worldview. It’s a meeting place of perspectives with a fresh take on issues that affect Canadians today.

Posted on

Incurable but not hopeless

— How hope shapes patients’ awareness of their advanced cancer prognosis

Nurturing hope among patients with cancer and their caregivers is possible and includes coping strategies and exploring realistic goals.

By &

Hope is defined as the expectation of achieving a future good. Patients with cancer, whether it is curable or not, prioritize cure as their highest hope.

Patients with incurable cancer wish to be informed about their disease and its treatment, but also need to maintain hope. This inner conflict can impact how they process information about their prognosis.

Prognostic awareness

Physicians are ethically obligated to inform patients about their prognosis so that patients can make cancer treatment decisions that are consistent with their values. When oncologists talk to patients about prognosis, they tend to talk about the extent of the disease (localized or metastatic), the goal of the treatment (curative or palliative) and the estimated survival (short months or many years).

Communication about prognosis can be challenging due to physician factors such as skill in discussing bad news, and patient factors such as denial. Some patients with incurable cancer, who are aware of their prognosis but haven’t accepted it, will say the treatment goal is cure.

Previous research indicates that less than half of patients with incurable cancer are aware of their prognosis. This is often attributed to a failure of communication.

But are patients truly unaware, or are they aware and not accepting of their prognosis? If inaccurate prognostic awareness is due to denial in spite of adequate communication from the oncologist, then interventions to improve communication may be ineffective, misguided or even harmful.

Patients with incurable cancer are more likely to receive end-of-life care concordant with their preferences when they have accurate prognostic awareness. Inaccurate prognostic awareness can lead to conflicting treatment decision-making between patients and oncologists, delayed referral to palliative care and more aggressive care at the end of life.

In a study of patients with advanced lung cancer, those who received early palliative care and had accurate prognostic awareness were more likely not to choose intravenous chemotherapy in the last two months of life, which would have been futile and worsened the quality of their end-of-life care.

How prognostic awareness is measured

Measuring prognostic awareness in patients is challenging because their responses may reflect their hopes rather than their true beliefs. In a recent publication in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, our research team synthesized data from 52 studies measuring prognostic awareness in patients with advanced cancer.

In the majority of studies, prognostic awareness was conceptualized as a binary entity: patients were asked if their cancer was curable, and their responses were coded as either accurate prognostic awareness (patients knew their cancer was incurable and responded that it was incurable) or inaccurate prognostic awareness (they thought it was curable and responded that it was curable).

A few studies included in our review improved upon the binary conceptualization by incorporating hope in the assessment of prognostic awareness.

These studies asked patients about their belief and their doctor’s belief about prognosis and found that about a third of patients will hold onto hope for a cure (responding that they believe their cancer is curable), even when acknowledging that their doctors were treating them with palliative intent. This discordance was attributed to poor coping.

The role of hope

Hope is a recognized coping strategy in patients with cancer. However, “false” hope may have detrimental effects. Patients may refuse to believe their prognosis and demand aggressive treatments that may cause more harm than benefit.

In the context of advanced cancer, the relationship between hope and hopelessness is balanced by acceptance, which can re-direct hope to new goals beyond cure, such as hope for connection with others and enjoyment of daily pleasures.

Nurturing hope among patients with cancer and their caregivers is possible and includes coping strategies focusing on what can be done (such as control of symptoms) and exploring realistic goals such as dignity and intimacy. Family and spirituality play an important role in supporting patient hope.

Incorporating patient hope into prognostic awareness

We improved upon the binary conceptualization of measuring prognostic awareness by incorporating patient hope, creating a trinary concept: patients who are aware and accepting of their prognosis; aware and not accepting; or truly unaware.

We propose that patients who are aware and accepting should be offered psychological supports to address any negative effects on mood; those who are aware and not accepting should be offered adaptive coping strategies to support their evolving prognostic awareness; and those who are truly unaware will benefit from interventions such as decision-aids and communication training. Early palliative care consultation may be beneficial at each stage of prognostic awareness.

This trinary conceptualization may guide future research to improve our understanding of the impact of hope in the setting of serious illness and help patients receive the right supports in their cancer journey.

Complete Article ↪HERE↩!

Posted on

Is extending life by weeks worth the toll some cancer drugs take?

— Doctors push for ‘common-sense oncology’

When a treatment buys a few weeks or months but comes with with a lot of side-effects, then the perspectives of people with cancer may differ, says Dr. Christopher Booth.

People may celebrate a 2-week improvement in survival without acknowledging costs

By Amina Zafar, Christine Birak

Tom Somerville’s decision to stop medical treatment for his end-stage cancer was a personal one.

Somerville, 62, was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2021 that later spread to his liver. He had six months of chemotherapy to slow down the cancer, which he said also left him exhausted with nausea.

The Kingston, Ont., resident decided to take a break from treatment to enjoy a trip with his wife to Victoria.

“Things that you cherish change, right?” Somerville said. “I used to love being out in the bush, but now it is just nice to have a sunny day, sit with my family [and] have visitors.”

Somerville said he came to terms with his prognosis and decided to enjoy the rest of the life he has left, extending the chemo break to a full stop. He said he was relieved to not “feel crappy” from the treatment anymore.

A man stands with a woman holding an umbrella while on vacation in B.C.
Tom Somerville, left, and his wife, Katherine Somerville, enjoyed a vacation in Victoria while he paused cancer treatments.

Dr. Christopher Booth, Somerville’s medical oncologist at Kingston General Hospital, supports him in his decision.

Booth is also part of a group of cancer doctors in Canada and the U.S. who say medications with marginal benefits are overused for patients in the end stage of the disease. The oncologists have started a campaign through their website, journal articles and podcasts encouraging honest conversations about use of the drugs with cancer patients, their families and experts.

The goal of what they call “common-sense oncology” is to prioritize treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life. They aim to address what they see as problems in the field, such as a lack of critical thinking in oncology training, falling standards for drug approvals and avoidance of end-of-life discussions.

Balancing hope and reality

Booth said while there have been incredible advances in cancer treatments in his 20 years of practice, there’s also an unfortunate reality: cancer can’t always be cured. He strives to convey it in a compassionate and clear way.

“Balancing … providing information but also providing hope, that’s the art of cancer care,” Booth said. “Balancing hope and reality, balancing treatment and quality of life and side-effects, that’s the tough part of this job.”

Booth said he thinks everyone would agree that a treatment that helps a patient live for extra months or years is very helpful. But when a treatment buys weeks with a lot of side-effects, then patient perspectives may differ.

In part that’s because the cancer drugs that can shrink tumours alsocome with side-effects, including fatigue, vomiting and hair loss.

A woman with long hair, seated wearing a black top and black glasses.
Not having treatment for cancer isn’t giving up, says Rachel Koven of Kingston, Ont.

Dr. Bishal Gyawali, a medical oncologist and associate professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, was motivated to press for changes when he noticed increased spending on treatments that don’t make much difference in patients’ lives while at the same time agencies didn’t put resources to what’s already been proven to work.

Gyawali previously treated people with cancer in Nepal, Japan, and the U.S. and saw the same trends there.

When attending oncology conferences, Gyawali said presenters would celebrate a two-week improvement in survival from a new treatment. Then, behind closed doors, other delegates would talk about the risks and costs of the drug.

“People are saying is this really meaningful?”

Gyawali aims to normalize asking such questions.

Quality of life and quantity

Rachel Koven’s husband, Ken Koven, was diagnosed in his late 40s with adenocarcinoma, which starts in gland cells of the esophagus tube. His cancer was found where the esophagus meets the stomach.

The father and avid runner treated having cancer like a battle, his wife said. He had nine months of palliative chemotherapy that’s given to relieve the symptoms of cancer and improve quality of life, but not meant to cure the malignancy.

The cancer spread. He then underwent radiation to the brain in Kingston, Ont. In 2016, about 16 months after the diagnosis, he died at age 49.

“For my husband, his hope was anchored in treatment,” Koven said. “However well-rounded the discussions we had, he would have always chosen treatment, and I can’t begrudge him for that because that is where he believed his strength was.”

Now, Koven feels families should ask more questions of doctors, such as:

  • How much time does this treatment offer?
  • What are the real costs and benefits of the treatment?

Koven said not having treatment is sometimes seen as throwing in the towel, but that can be misleading.

A man stands wearing glasses, a striped shirt, suit jacket and conference lanyard in front of a blue backdrop reading American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Dr. Bishal Gyawali wants people to ask whether a two-week improvement in survival is meaningful.

“Not having treatment isn’t giving up,” Koven said. “Sometimes by having treatment you are giving up. You are giving up time with your family. You are giving up a quality of life necessarily for something you are not trading off any extra days.”

Koven wrote an essay in 2018 on her experience as her husband’s caregiver in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. At the time, she was motivated “to contribute to the best possible life in the face of death.”

Now Koven advocates for the oncology field to “recalibrate” toward an emphasis on what brings the person joy rather than only focusing on treating their cancer. Finding novel treatments that will really benefit patients is also important to her.

Seek meaningful answers

Dr. Elizabeth Eisenhauer ran more than 170 cancer drug trials in Canada, the U.S. and Europe. Now retired, Eisenhauer won the 2021 Canada Gairdner Wightman Award for investigating new cancer drugs and delivery approaches, including for Taxol, an anti-cancer treatment.

“It’s a good thing we are having so much interest in finding novel therapeutics for cancer,” Eisenhauer said. “But my goodness, let’s find the answers that matter to patients, too.”

Eisenhauer recalled how in the 1980s, scientists set an arbitrary number as a standard, worldwide indicator of safe tumour shrinkage for early clinical trial research.

After that, measuring whether a tumour grew by 20 per cent on a CT scan, the definition of progression, became an endpoint, or goal, for pharmaceutical companies running randomized trials, Eisenhauer said. Randomized trials are meant to guide whether a drug should be used as a standard of care by physicians.

“You have an answer sooner [using tumour shrinkage], but is it an answer that is meaningful?” she said.

Eisenhauer would like to see cancer clinical trials include more criteria.

“I think common-sense oncology from my perspective as a trialist needs to come from the perspective of trying to be sure that the trials that we design at least can capture the information that will be of importance to those discussions with the patient sitting in front of you.”

Eisenhauer said there aren’t a huge number of game changers in oncology every year, but many are available in Canada. She said costs to patients in terms of side-effects and time coming to the clinic also need to be considered.

A patient receives chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer in France.
Randomized trials are meant to guide whether a physician should use a chemotherapy agent as a standard of care.

Despite that, other Canadian researchers looking last year at use of treatments like chemotherapy or major surgery among more than 151,000 people who died found that a treatment was commonly given — in 41 per cent of cases — in the last 30 days of life but was potentially inappropriate.

So far, Gyawali said the common-sense oncology movement is gaining momentum worldwide and he’s received positive feedback from regulators, physicians, patients and payers.

Tom and Katherine Somerville now take time every day to enjoy moments together, like walking down to the pond near their farmhouse, going for a drive on a sunny day or listening to old tunes.

For them, quality of life includes loving glances.

“You appreciate that moment and you want to take it all in and those are the simple things that really are not so simple,” Katherine said. “They’re the important things.”