Jan Schildmann1, Jacinta Tan, Sabine Salloch, Jochen Vollmann. 1. Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum, Malakowturm-Markstraße 258a, D-44799 Bochum, Germany. jan.schildmann@rub.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveys indicate considerable variation regarding the provision of cancer treatment at the end of life. The variation cannot be fully explained by differences concerning the clinical situation or patients' preferences. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore medical oncologists' experiences with advanced cancer, as well as their views of the relevance of medical and nonmedical criteria for decisions about limiting treatment. METHODS: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with physicians working in medical oncology in tertiary care hospitals or district general hospitals in England. Purposive sampling and qualitative analysis were performed. RESULTS: Physicians reported that a number of nonmedical factors influence professional decisions about the offering or limiting of cancer treatment in advanced cancer in addition to medical criteria. Physicians' individual judgments about the benefit of treatment, as well as the amount of their clinical experience, were cited as such factors. In addition, the physicians' perceptions of the patient's age and life circumstances were reported to influence their treatment decisions. Multiprofessional team discussions and the systematic collection of relevant clinical data regarding the outcomes of different treatment approaches in advanced cancer were suggested as strategies to improve the quality of treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide explanations for the variation in treatment in advanced cancer. Making value judgments explicit and gathering more appropriate clinical data on the outcomes of treatment near the end of life are prerequisites for improved ethical and evidence-based treatment decisions in advanced cancer.
BACKGROUND: Surveys indicate considerable variation regarding the provision of cancer treatment at the end of life. The variation cannot be fully explained by differences concerning the clinical situation or patients' preferences. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore medical oncologists' experiences with advanced cancer, as well as their views of the relevance of medical and nonmedical criteria for decisions about limiting treatment. METHODS: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with physicians working in medical oncology in tertiary care hospitals or district general hospitals in England. Purposive sampling and qualitative analysis were performed. RESULTS: Physicians reported that a number of nonmedical factors influence professional decisions about the offering or limiting of cancer treatment in advanced cancer in addition to medical criteria. Physicians' individual judgments about the benefit of treatment, as well as the amount of their clinical experience, were cited as such factors. In addition, the physicians' perceptions of the patient's age and life circumstances were reported to influence their treatment decisions. Multiprofessional team discussions and the systematic collection of relevant clinical data regarding the outcomes of different treatment approaches in advanced cancer were suggested as strategies to improve the quality of treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide explanations for the variation in treatment in advanced cancer. Making value judgments explicit and gathering more appropriate clinical data on the outcomes of treatment near the end of life are prerequisites for improved ethical and evidence-based treatment decisions in advanced cancer.
Authors: Alvin C Kwok; Marcus E Semel; Stuart R Lipsitz; Angela M Bader; Amber E Barnato; Atul A Gawande; Ashish K Jha Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: K E Covinsky; J D Fuller; K Yaffe; C B Johnston; M B Hamel; J Lynn; J M Teno; R S Phillips Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jan Gaertner; Vera Weingärtner; Stefan Lange; Elke Hausner; Ansgar Gerhardus; Steffen T Simon; Raymond Voltz; Gerhild Becker; Norbert Schmacke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: N Haj Mohammad; N Bernards; M G H Besselink; O R Busch; J W Wilmink; G J M Creemers; I H J T De Hingh; V E P P Lemmens; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Daniel Low; Emily C Merkel; Manoj Menon; Gary H Lyman; Henry Ddungu; Elizabeth Namukwaya; Mhoira Leng; Corey Casper Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2017-01-18