Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1807–1814 | Cite as

Potential curability and perception of received information in esophageal cancer patients

  • Eleonora Pinto
  • Francesco Cavallin
  • Luca Maria Saadeh
  • Maria Cristina Bellissimo
  • Rita Alfieri
  • Silvia Mantoan
  • Matteo Cagol
  • Carlo Castoro
  • Marco ScarpaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate patients’ perceived receipt of information according to the possibility of cure in esophageal cancer.

Methods

One hundred and twelve consecutive patients presenting at the multidisciplinary visit at the Veneto Institute of Oncology for esophageal cancer between 2014 and 2016 were included in the study. The Italian version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaires C30 (core questionnaire), OG25 (esophago-gastric cancer module), and INFO25 (information module) were used.

Results

Candidates for palliative treatment were less informed about the disease (adjusted mean difference − 11.5, 95% CI − 23.0 to − 0.02) and less satisfied with information provided (adjusted mean difference − 18.3, 95% CI − 31.9 to − 4.7) than candidates for curative treatment. In addition, candidates for palliative treatment wanted to receive more information than candidates for curative treatment (adjusted mean difference 26.1, 95% CI 0.5 to 51.6). Better quality of life was associated with satisfaction of received information (β = 0.77, p < 0.0001) and of receiving information about things that the patient can do to help himself (β = 0.26, p = 0.04). More anxiety was associated to receiving more information about disease (β = 0.46, p = 0.02) but less information about things that the patient can do to help himself (β = − 0.38, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Candidates for palliative treatment were less satisfied with information about the disease and wanted to receive more information. Additionally, some aspects of quality of life were found to be associated with perceived receipt of information. Appropriate training in communication of prognostic information may improve clinical management of incurable cancer patients.

Keywords

Esophageal cancer Quality of life Information Communication Cancer management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from Berlucchi Foundation (Brescia, Italy) to Carlo Castoro. Funding sources had no involvement in study design, data collection and analysis, or write up.

The authors are also grateful to Ms. Christina Drace (Language Revision Service, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy) for her kind help in the final editing of the manuscript.

Preliminary results were presented in the poster sessions during ESDE 2015 at Stockholm, Sweden and DDW 2016 at San Diego, CA, USA.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

520_2017_4005_FIG2_ESM.gif (11 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1

Quality of life and functioning scales (a) and symptoms scales (b): means of C30 and OG25 selected scales. (GIF 10 kb)

520_2017_4005_MOESM1_ESM.tif (2 mb)
High resolution (TIFF 2028 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kane HL, Halpern MT, Squiers LB, Treiman KA, LA MC (2014) Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice. CA Cancer J Clin 64(6):377–388.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21245 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faller H, Koch U, Brähler E, Härter M, Keller M, Schulz H, Wegscheider K, Weis J, Boehncke A, Hund B, Reuter K, Richard M, Sehner S, Szalai C, Wittchen HU, Mehnert A (2016) Satisfaction with information and unmet information needs in men and women with cancer. J Cancer Surviv 10(1):62–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-015-0451-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNair AG, MacKichan F, Donovan JL et al (2016) What surgeons tell patients and what patients want to know before major cancer surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer 16(1):258.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2292-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eggly S, Penner LA, Hagiwara N, Gonzalez R, Harper FWK, Heath EI, Albrecht TL (2013) Patient, companion, and oncologist agreement regarding information discussed during triadic oncology clinical interactions. Psychooncology 22(3):637–645.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J (2001) Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer 84(1):48–51.  https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1573 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furber L, Murtagh GM, Bonas SA, Bankart JG, Thomas AL (2014) Improving consultations in oncology: the development of a novel consultation aid. Br J Cancer 110(5):1101–1109.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.749 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2):87–108.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scarpa M, Saadeh LM, Fasolo A, Alfieri R, Cagol M, Cavallin F, Pinto E, Zaninotto G, Ancona E, Castoro C (2013) Health-related quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer: analysis at different steps of the treatment pathway. J Gastrointest Surg 17(3):421–433.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-2069-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parameswaran R, McNair A, Avery KN et al (2008) The role of health-related quality of life outcomes in clinical decision making in surgery for esophageal cancer: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 15(9):2372–2379.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0042-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blazeby JM, Macefield R, Blencowe NS, Jacobs M, McNair AG, Sprangers M, Brookes ST, Research Group of the Core Outcomes and iNformation SEts iN SUrgical Studies-Oesophageal Cancer, Consensus Group of the Core Outcomes and iNformation SEts iN SUrgical Studies-Oesophageal Cancer et al (2015) Core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 102(8):936–943.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9840 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogg L, Loge JH, Aasland OG, Graugaard PK (2009) Physicians' attitudes towards disclosure of prognostic information: a survey among a representative cross-section of 1605 Norwegian physicians. Patient Educ Couns 77(2):242–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blencowe NS, Strong S, McNair AG et al (2015) Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy. BMJ Open 5:e008536PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, Haes JCJM, Kaasa S, Klee M, Osoba D, Razavi D, Rofe PB, Schraub S, Sneeuw K, Sullivan M, Takeda F (1993) The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arraras JI, Greimel E, Sezer O, Chie WC, Bergenmar M, Costantini A, Young T, Vlasic KK, Velikova G (2010) An international validation study of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire: an instrument to assess the information given to cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 46(15):2726–2738.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.06.118 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lagergren P, Fayers P, Conroy T, Stein HJ, Sezer O, Hardwick R, Hammerlid E, Bottomley A, van Cutsem E, Blazeby JM, European Organisation for Research Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal and Quality of Life Groups (2007) Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health-related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach. Eur J Cancer 43(14):2066–2073.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R Core Team (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
  17. 17.
    Hagerty RG, Butow PN, Ellis PM et al (2005) Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Oncol 16:1005–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Portnoy DB, Han PK, Ferrer RA et al (2013) Physicians' attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty differ by perceived ambiguity aversion of their patients. Health Expect 16(4):362–372.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00717.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson EE, Thompson SK, Bull J, Jones B, Price T, Devitt PG, Watson DI, Bright T (2016) Improving care for patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer: impact of a statewide multidisciplinary team. ANZ J Surg 86(4):270–273.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.12869 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Husson O, Thong MS, Mols F et al (2013) Illness perceptions in cancer survivors: what is the role of information provision? Psychooncology 22(3):490–498.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glimelius B, Cavalli-Björkman N (2016) Does shared decision making exist in oncologic practice? Acta Oncol 55(2):125–128.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2015.1102464 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costantini A, Grassi L, Picardi A (2015) Awareness of cancer, satisfaction with care, emotional distress, and adjustment to illness: an Italian multicenter study. Psychooncology 24(9):1088–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3768 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Meulen N, Jansen J, van Dulmen S, Bensing J, van Weert J (2008) Interventions to improve recall of medical information in cancer patients: a systematic review of the literature. Psychooncology 17(9):857–868.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1290 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Detmar SB, Aaronson NK, Wever LD et al (2000) How are you feeling? Who wants to know? Patients' and oncologists' preferences for discussing health-related quality-of-life issues. J Clin Oncol 18(18):3295–3301.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.18.3295 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murtagh GM, Furber L, Thomas AL (2013) Patient-initiated questions: how can doctors encourage them and improve the consultation process? A qualitative study. BMJ Open 3(10):e003112.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003112 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hietanen PS, Aro AR, Holli KA, Schreck M, Peura A, Joensuu HT (2007) A short communication course for physicians improves the quality of patient information in a clinical trial. Acta Oncol 46(1):42–48.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860600849067 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleonora Pinto
    • 1
  • Francesco Cavallin
    • 1
  • Luca Maria Saadeh
    • 1
  • Maria Cristina Bellissimo
    • 1
  • Rita Alfieri
    • 1
  • Silvia Mantoan
    • 1
  • Matteo Cagol
    • 1
  • Carlo Castoro
    • 1
  • Marco Scarpa
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Esophageal and D igestive Tract Surgical Unit, Regional Centre for Esophageal DiseaseVeneto Oncological Institute (IOV-IRCCS)PadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations