PURPOSE: We sought the attitudes of people with a cancer experience to using best case, worst case, and typical scenarios for survival to explain life expectancy. METHODS: Oncology clinic attendees and Breast Cancer Network Australia (BCNA) members completed a survey describing two formats for explaining life expectancy to a hypothetical patient with advanced cancer-providing either three scenarios for survival or just the median survival time. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 505 respondents from outpatient clinics (n = 251) and BCNA (n = 254) were median age of 58 years, female 74 %, and breast primary 64 %. More respondents agreed that explaining three scenarios (vs. median survival) would make sense (93 vs. 75 %), be helpful (93 vs. 69 %), convey hope (68 vs. 44 %), and reassure (60 vs. 40 %), while fewer respondents agreed that explaining three scenarios (vs. median survival) would upset people (24 vs. 36 %); all p values < 0.001. Most respondents agreed that each scenario should be presented: best case 89 %, worst case 82 %, and typical 92 %. For information about their own prognosis, 88 % preferred all three scenarios and 5 % a single estimate of the median. Respondents with higher education were more likely to agree that presenting three scenarios would be helpful (95 vs. 90 %, p = 0.05). Respondents with breast cancer were more likely to agree that explaining three scenarios would upset people (31 vs. 13 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents judged presentation of best case, worst case, and typical scenarios preferable and more helpful and reassuring than presentation of just the median survival time when explaining life expectancy to patients with advanced cancer.
PURPOSE: We sought the attitudes of people with a cancer experience to using best case, worst case, and typical scenarios for survival to explain life expectancy. METHODS: Oncology clinic attendees and Breast Cancer Network Australia (BCNA) members completed a survey describing two formats for explaining life expectancy to a hypothetical patient with advanced cancer-providing either three scenarios for survival or just the median survival time. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 505 respondents from outpatient clinics (n = 251) and BCNA (n = 254) were median age of 58 years, female 74 %, and breast primary 64 %. More respondents agreed that explaining three scenarios (vs. median survival) would make sense (93 vs. 75 %), be helpful (93 vs. 69 %), convey hope (68 vs. 44 %), and reassure (60 vs. 40 %), while fewer respondents agreed that explaining three scenarios (vs. median survival) would upset people (24 vs. 36 %); all p values < 0.001. Most respondents agreed that each scenario should be presented: best case 89 %, worst case 82 %, and typical 92 %. For information about their own prognosis, 88 % preferred all three scenarios and 5 % a single estimate of the median. Respondents with higher education were more likely to agree that presenting three scenarios would be helpful (95 vs. 90 %, p = 0.05). Respondents with breast cancer were more likely to agree that explaining three scenarios would upset people (31 vs. 13 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents judged presentation of best case, worst case, and typical scenarios preferable and more helpful and reassuring than presentation of just the median survival time when explaining life expectancy to patients with advanced cancer.
Authors: Rebecca G Hagerty; Phyllis N Butow; Peter A Ellis; Elizabeth A Lobb; Susan Pendlebury; Natasha Leighl; David Goldstein; Sing Kai Lo; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Karen Hancock; Josephine M Clayton; Sharon M Parker; Sharon Wal der; Phyllis N Butow; Sue Carrick; David Currow; Davina Ghersi; Paul Glare; Rebecca Hagerty; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Anuradha Vasista; Martin Stockler; Andrew Martin; Nick Pavlakis; Katrin Sjoquist; David Goldstein; Sanjeev Gill; Vikram Jain; Geoffrey Liu; George Kannourakis; Yeul Hong Kim; Louise Nott; Stephanie Snow; Matthew Burge; Dean Harris; Derek Jonker; Yu Jo Chua; Richard Epstein; Antony Bonaventura; Belinda Kiely Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Breffni Hannon; Nadia Swami; Monika K Krzyzanowska; Natasha Leighl; Gary Rodin; Lisa W Le; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jennifer L Lund; Paul R Duberstein; Kah Poh Loh; Nikesha Gilmore; Sandy Plumb; Lianlian Lei; Alexander P Keil; Jessica Y Islam; Laura C Hanson; Jeffrey K Giguere; Victor G Vogel; Brian L Burnette; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Katrin M Sjoquist; Michael L Friedlander; Rachel L O'Connell; Merryn Voysey; Madeleine T King; Martin R Stockler; Amit M Oza; Kim Gillies; Julie K Martyn; Phyllis N Butow Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-10-09
Authors: Linda J M Oostendorp; Petronella B Ottevanger; Agnes J van de Wouw; Ivonne J H Schoenaker; Hiltje de Graaf; Winette T A van der Graaf; Peep F M Stalmeier Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Stephanie Johnson; Josephine Clayton; Phyllis N Butow; William Silvester; Karen Detering; Jane Hall; Belinda E Kiely; Jonathon Cebon; Stephen Clarke; Melanie L Bell; Martin Stockler; Phillip Beale; Martin H N Tattersall Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Linda J M Oostendorp; Petronella B Ottevanger; A Rogier T Donders; Agnes J van de Wouw; Ivonne J H Schoenaker; Tineke J Smilde; Winette T A van der Graaf; Peep F M Stalmeier Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.796