Heather M Derry1,2, Paul K Maciejewski1,2,3, Andrew S Epstein1,2,4, Manish A Shah1,2,5, Thomas W LeBlanc6, Valerie Reyna7, Holly G Prigerson1,2. 1. 1Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 2. 2Center for Research on End-of-Life Care, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 3. 3Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 4. 4Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. 5Division of Hematology/Oncology, Meyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 6. 6Department of Medicine, Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 7. 7College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Abstract
Background: Routine imaging ("scan") results contain key prognostic information for advanced cancer patients. Yet, little is known about how accurately patients understand this information, and whether psychological states relate to accurate understanding. Objective: To determine if patients' sadness and anxiety, as well as results showing poorer prognosis, are associated with patients' understanding of scan results. Design: Archival contrasts performed on multi-institutional cohort study data. Subjects: Advanced cancer patients whose disease progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen (N = 94) and their clinicians (N = 28) were recruited before an oncology appointment to discuss routine scan results. Measurements: In preappointment structured interviews, patients rated sadness and anxiety about their cancer. Following the appointment, patients and clinicians reported whether the imaging results discussed showed progressive, improved, or stable disease. Results: Overall, 68% of patients reported their imaging results accurately, as indicated by concordance with their clinician's rating. Accuracy was higher among patients whose results indicated improved (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.12, p = 0.02) or stable (AOR = 2.59, p = 0.04) disease compared with progressive disease. Patients with greater anxiety were less likely to report their imaging results accurately than those with less anxiety (AOR = 0.09, p = 0.003); in contrast, those with greater sadness were more likely to report their results accurately than those with less sadness (AOR = 5.23, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Advanced cancer patients with higher anxiety and those with disease progression may need more help understanding or accepting their scan results than others.
Background: Routine imaging ("scan") results contain key prognostic information for advanced cancerpatients. Yet, little is known about how accurately patients understand this information, and whether psychological states relate to accurate understanding. Objective: To determine if patients' sadness and anxiety, as well as results showing poorer prognosis, are associated with patients' understanding of scan results. Design: Archival contrasts performed on multi-institutional cohort study data. Subjects: Advanced cancerpatients whose disease progressed after at least one chemotherapy regimen (N = 94) and their clinicians (N = 28) were recruited before an oncology appointment to discuss routine scan results. Measurements: In preappointment structured interviews, patients rated sadness and anxiety about their cancer. Following the appointment, patients and clinicians reported whether the imaging results discussed showed progressive, improved, or stable disease. Results: Overall, 68% of patients reported their imaging results accurately, as indicated by concordance with their clinician's rating. Accuracy was higher among patients whose results indicated improved (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.12, p = 0.02) or stable (AOR = 2.59, p = 0.04) disease compared with progressive disease. Patients with greater anxiety were less likely to report their imaging results accurately than those with less anxiety (AOR = 0.09, p = 0.003); in contrast, those with greater sadness were more likely to report their results accurately than those with less sadness (AOR = 5.23, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Advanced cancerpatients with higher anxiety and those with disease progression may need more help understanding or accepting their scan results than others.
Entities:
Keywords:
anxiety; delivery of health care; health knowledge; neoplasms; psycho-oncology
Authors: Joshua M Bauml; Andrea Troxel; C Neill Epperson; Roger B Cohen; Kathryn Schmitz; Carrie Stricker; Lawrence N Shulman; Angela Bradbury; Jun J Mao; Corey J Langer Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Baohui Zhang; Alexi A Wright; Haiden A Huskamp; Matthew E Nilsson; Matthew L Maciejewski; Craig C Earle; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-03-09
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary K Morreale; Tanina F Moore; Seongho Kim; Heatherlun S Uphold; Lorna M Mabunda; Felicity W K Harper Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2019-08-22
Authors: Login S George; Paul K Maciejewski; Andrew S Epstein; Megan Shen; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-12-28 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Heather M Derry; Andrew S Epstein; Wendy G Lichtenthal; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Expert Rev Anticancer Ther Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 4.512
Authors: Login S George; Tracy A Balboni; Paul K Maciejewski; Andrew S Epstein; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kim Tam Bui; Belinda E Kiely; Haryana M Dhillon; Chris Brown; Kay Xu; Mohsen Shafiei; Prunella Blinman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fay J Hlubocky; Tamara G Sher; David Cella; Kristen E Wroblewski; Jeffery Peppercorn; Christopher K Daugherty Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-02
Authors: Kim Tam Bui; Roger Liang; Belinda E Kiely; Chris Brown; Haryana M Dhillon; Prunella Blinman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 2.692