Kah Poh Loh1, Huiwen Xu2, Anthony Back3, Paul R Duberstein4, Supriya Gupta Mohile1, Ronald Epstein1,5,6,7, Colin McHugh1, Heidi D Klepin8, Gregory Abel9, Stephanie J Lee3, Areej El-Jawahri10, Thomas W LeBlanc11. 1. James P. Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 2. Department of Surgery, Cancer Control, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York. 3. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Society, and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York. 7. Palliative Care Program, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York. 8. Section on Hematology and Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Department of Hematology-Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 11. Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ensuring that patients with hematologic malignancies have an accurate understanding of their likelihood of cure is important for informed decision making. In a multicenter, longitudinal study, the authors examined discordance in patients' perception of their chance of cure versus that of their hematologists, whether patient-hematologist discordance changed after a consultation with a hematologist, and factors associated with persistent discordance. METHODS: Before and after consultation with a hematologist, patients were asked about their perceived chance of cure (options were <10%, 10%-19%, and up to 90%-100% in 10% increments, and "do not wish to answer"). Hematologists were asked the same question after consultation. Discordance was defined as a difference in response by 2 levels. The McNemar test was used to compare changes in patient-hematologist prognostic discordance from before to after consultation. A generalized linear mixed model was used to examine associations between factors and postconsultation discordance, adjusting for clustering at the hematologist level. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients and 46 hematologists from 4 sites were included in the current study. Before consultation, approximately 61% of dyads were discordant, which improved to 50% after consultation (P < .01). On multivariate analysis, lower educational level (<college vs postgraduate: odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% CI, 1.02-4.92), higher social support-affection subscale score (1-unit change in score: OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32), and discordance before consultation (OR, 6.17; 95% CI, 2.99-12.72) were found to be significantly associated with discordance after consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-hematologist concordance in prognostic understanding appears to improve after a hematology consultation, but approximately one-half of patients' views of their prognoses were found to remain discordant with those of their hematologists. Interventions are needed to improve prognostic understanding among patients with hematologic malignancies.
BACKGROUND: Ensuring that patients with hematologic malignancies have an accurate understanding of their likelihood of cure is important for informed decision making. In a multicenter, longitudinal study, the authors examined discordance in patients' perception of their chance of cure versus that of their hematologists, whether patient-hematologist discordance changed after a consultation with a hematologist, and factors associated with persistent discordance. METHODS: Before and after consultation with a hematologist, patients were asked about their perceived chance of cure (options were <10%, 10%-19%, and up to 90%-100% in 10% increments, and "do not wish to answer"). Hematologists were asked the same question after consultation. Discordance was defined as a difference in response by 2 levels. The McNemar test was used to compare changes in patient-hematologist prognostic discordance from before to after consultation. A generalized linear mixed model was used to examine associations between factors and postconsultation discordance, adjusting for clustering at the hematologist level. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients and 46 hematologists from 4 sites were included in the current study. Before consultation, approximately 61% of dyads were discordant, which improved to 50% after consultation (P < .01). On multivariate analysis, lower educational level (<college vs postgraduate: odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% CI, 1.02-4.92), higher social support-affection subscale score (1-unit change in score: OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32), and discordance before consultation (OR, 6.17; 95% CI, 2.99-12.72) were found to be significantly associated with discordance after consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-hematologist concordance in prognostic understanding appears to improve after a hematology consultation, but approximately one-half of patients' views of their prognoses were found to remain discordant with those of their hematologists. Interventions are needed to improve prognostic understanding among patients with hematologic malignancies.
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Laura D Kubzansky; Eva S Schernhammer; Michelle D Holmes; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ryan D Nipp; Joseph A Greer; Areej El-Jawahri; Samantha M Moran; Lara Traeger; Jamie M Jacobs; Juliet C Jacobsen; Emily R Gallagher; Elyse R Park; David P Ryan; Vicki A Jackson; William F Pirl; Jennifer S Temel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M A Sekeres; R M Stone; D Zahrieh; D Neuberg; V Morrison; D J De Angelo; I Galinsky; S J Lee Journal: Leukemia Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Tracy M Robinson; Stewart C Alexander; Margie Hays; Amy S Jeffreys; Maren K Olsen; Keri L Rodriguez; Kathryn I Pollak; Amy P Abernethy; Robert Arnold; James A Tulsky Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Supriya G Mohile; Jennifer L Lund; Ronald Epstein; Lianlian Lei; Eva Culakova; Colin McHugh; Megan Wells; Nikesha Gilmore; Mostafa R Mohamed; Charles Kamen; Valerie Aarne; Alison Conlin; James Bearden; Adedayo Onitilo; Marsha Wittink; William Dale; Arti Hurria; Paul Duberstein Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-23
Authors: Robert Gramling; Kevin Fiscella; Guibo Xing; Michael Hoerger; Paul Duberstein; Sandy Plumb; Supriya Mohile; Joshua J Fenton; Daniel J Tancredi; Richard L Kravitz; Ronald M Epstein Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Nancy S Morris; Terry S Field; Joann L Wagner; Sarah L Cutrona; Douglas W Roblin; Bridget Gaglio; Andrew E Williams; Paul J K Han; Mary E Costanza; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2013
Authors: Melisa L Wong; Francesca M Nicosia; Alexander K Smith; Louise C Walter; Vivian Lam; Harvey Jay Cohen; Kah Poh Loh; Supriya G Mohile; Carling J Ursem; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Amy Cole; Daniel R Richardson; Karthik Adapa; Amro Khasawneh; Norah Crossnohere; John F P Bridges; Lukasz Mazur Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-06-29
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Enrique Soto Pérez de Celis; Paul R Duberstein; Eva Culakova; Ronald M Epstein; Huiwen Xu; Sindhuja Kadambi; Marie Flannery; Allison Magnuson; Colin McHugh; Kelly M Trevino; Gina Tuch; Erika Ramsdale; Reza Yousefi-Nooraie; Margaret Sedenquist; Jane Jijun Liu; Nataliya Melnyk; Jodi Geer; Supriya G Mohile Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Tamryn F Gray; Deborah Forst; Ryan D Nipp; Joseph A Greer; Jennifer S Temel; Areej El-Jawahri Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Huiwen Xu; Ronald M Epstein; Supriya G Mohile; Holly G Prigerson; Sandra Plumb; Susan Ladwig; Sindhuja Kadambi; Melisa L Wong; Colin McHugh; Amy An; Kelly Trevino; Fahad Saeed; Paul R Duberstein Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Marissa LoCastro; Andrea M Baran; Jane L Liesveld; Eric Huselton; Michael W Becker; Kristen Marie O'Dwyer; Omar S Aljitawi; Megan Baumgart; Eric Snyder; Benzi Kluger; Kah Poh Loh; Jason H Mendler Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-12-28