Megan Winner1, Ana Wilson1, Alexander Yahanda1, Faiz Gani1, Timothy M Pawlik2. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: tpawlik1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While physician attitudes about treatment goals have been examined around end-of-life care, surgeon attitudes regarding communication of therapeutic goals prior to cancer-directed operations have not been investigated. We examined how surgeons discuss the potential for cancer "cure" prior to operative treatment and how surgeons perceive patient priorities and treatment goals. METHODS: Surgeons were invited to complete a Web-based survey about attitudes and practices when discussing cancer-directed operations, including how they defined cancer cure and whether and how they discussed cure as a treatment goal. RESULTS: A total of 551 e-mail invitations were sent and opened; 205 responses were received (response rate 37.2%). While 44.9% of surgeons reported being asked about cure in all or most discussions, only 37.6% used the word cure as often. When discussing cure, an equal number of surgeons reported using qualitative versus quantitative language to express probability of cure (45.7% and 47.4%, respectively). Roughly one third of surgeons (n = 65, 31.7%) defined cure as 5-year, disease-free survival; 36.1% (n = 74) defined cure as absence of recurrence over the patient's lifetime; and 21 (10.2%) defined cure as return to baseline population risk for that specific cancer. Over half of surgeons (n = 112, 56.9%) perceived that to "be cured" was among the top 2 priorities of patients presenting for operative treatment. CONCLUSION: When discussing relative benefits and goals of therapy, surgeon self-reported discussions of cure varied considerably. Despite identifying cure as a top priority for patients, surgeons were not inclined to incorporate cure into discussions of risks, benefits, and goals of therapy.
BACKGROUND: While physician attitudes about treatment goals have been examined around end-of-life care, surgeon attitudes regarding communication of therapeutic goals prior to cancer-directed operations have not been investigated. We examined how surgeons discuss the potential for cancer "cure" prior to operative treatment and how surgeons perceive patient priorities and treatment goals. METHODS: Surgeons were invited to complete a Web-based survey about attitudes and practices when discussing cancer-directed operations, including how they defined cancer cure and whether and how they discussed cure as a treatment goal. RESULTS: A total of 551 e-mail invitations were sent and opened; 205 responses were received (response rate 37.2%). While 44.9% of surgeons reported being asked about cure in all or most discussions, only 37.6% used the word cure as often. When discussing cure, an equal number of surgeons reported using qualitative versus quantitative language to express probability of cure (45.7% and 47.4%, respectively). Roughly one third of surgeons (n = 65, 31.7%) defined cure as 5-year, disease-free survival; 36.1% (n = 74) defined cure as absence of recurrence over the patient's lifetime; and 21 (10.2%) defined cure as return to baseline population risk for that specific cancer. Over half of surgeons (n = 112, 56.9%) perceived that to "be cured" was among the top 2 priorities of patients presenting for operative treatment. CONCLUSION: When discussing relative benefits and goals of therapy, surgeon self-reported discussions of cure varied considerably. Despite identifying cure as a top priority for patients, surgeons were not inclined to incorporate cure into discussions of risks, benefits, and goals of therapy.
Authors: Anthony M Rossi; Joseph Sobanko; Naomi Lawrence; Jeremy Bordeaux; Todd Cartee; Eric S Armbrecht; Anit Behera; Christian L Baum; Murad Alam; Ian A Maher Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Faiz Gani; Zachary O Enumah; Alison M Conca-Cheng; Joseph K Canner; Fabian M Johnston Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 2.947