Dataset Information

Experiences along the diagnostic pathway for patients with advanced lung cancer in the USA: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most patients with lung cancer are diagnosed at advanced stages. However, the advent of oral targeted therapies has improved the prognosis of many patients with lung cancer.

Purpose

We aimed to understand the diagnostic experiences of patients with advanced lung cancer with oncogenic mutations.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with oncogenic alterations. Patients were recruited from online support groups within the USA. Interviews were conducted remotely or in person. Analysis used an iterative inductive and deductive process. Themes were mapped to the Model for Pathways to Treatment.

Results

40 patients (12 male and 28 female) with a median age of 48 were included. We identified nine distinct themes. During the 'patient interval', individuals became concerned about symptoms, but often attributed them to other causes. Prolonged or more severe symptoms prompted care-seeking. During the 'primary care interval', doctors initially treated for illnesses other than cancer. Discovery of an imaging abnormality was a turning point in diagnostic pathways. Occasionally, severity of symptoms prompted patients to seek emergency care. During the 'secondary care interval', obtaining tissue samples was pivotal in confirming diagnosis. Delays in accessing oncology care sometimes led to patient distress. Obtaining genetic testing was crucial in directing patients to receive targeted treatments.

Conclusions

Patients experienced multiple different routes to their diagnosis. Some patients perceived delays, inefficiencies and lack of coordination, which could be distressing. Shifting the stage of diagnosis of lung cancer to optimise the impact of targeted therapies will require concerted efforts in early detection.

SUBMITTER: Al Achkar M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8070881 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey. Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.

Project description:Objectives:Lung cancer is one of the most common types of cancer, with high mortality rate and a significant burden of symptoms. It is therefore important to assess patients' perceived quality of life during the diagnostic process and treatment. Knowledge of and attention to patients' perspectives, experiences, and expectations in relation to lung cancer diagnostic pathways is limited. The aim of the study is to contribute with patients' and relatives' experiences with and their assessment of the quality of a hospital-based lung cancer diagnostic pathway. Methods:A qualitative study was conducted, comprising participant observation with 20 patients and semi-structured interviews with further 19 patients referred to the Lung Cancer Package, which initiates a fast track diagnostic pathway in a hospital setting. Data were obtained over a period of 9?months and analysed in collaboration with an interdisciplinary team of health professionals. The purpose was to further develop existing management strategies of the fast track diagnostic pathway based on patient's perspectives. Results:Patients associated the fast track diagnostic pathway with high levels of anxiety due to the immediate risk of a lung cancer diagnosis. Although patients experienced the fast track programme as very challenging, they still wanted to move through the diagnostic pathway as quickly as possible. The patients expressed a need for support from relatives and repeatedly required information in multiple formats from health professionals throughout the diagnostic pathway. Conclusions:The study provided insight into the need for developing the fast track diagnostic pathway with a focus on patient anxiety, network involvement, and information strategies. The results qualified clinical practice with an increased focus on managing patients' anxiety, raised awareness to involve relatives in the diagnostic process, and relaying information in dialogue with patients and their relatives, including management strategies to support patients through diagnostic investigations in the fast track programme.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer clinical guidelines and risk tools often rely on smoking history as a significant risk factor. However, never-smokers make up 14% of the lung cancer population, and this proportion is rising. Consequently, they are often perceived as low-risk and may experience diagnostic delays. This study aimed to explore how clinicians make risk-informed diagnostic decisions for never-smokers.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 10 lung cancer diagnosticians, supported by data from interviews with 20 never-smoker lung cancer patients. The data were analyzed using a framework analysis based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and data-driven interpretations.ResultsParticipants described 3 main strategies for making risk-informed decisions incorporating smoking status: guidelines, heuristics, and potential harms. Clinicians supplemented guidelines with their own heuristics for never-smokers, such as using higher thresholds for chest X-ray. Decisions were easier for patients with high-risk symptoms such as hemoptysis. Clinicians worried about overinvestigating never-smoker patients, particularly in terms of physical and psychological harms from invasive procedures or radiation. To minimize unnecessary anxiety about lung cancer risk, clinicians made efforts to downplay this. Conversely, some patients found that this caused process harms such as delays and miscommunications.ConclusionImproved guidance and methods of risk differentiation for never-smokers are needed to avoid diagnostic delays, overreassurance, and clinical pessimism. This requires an improved evidence base and initiatives to increase awareness among clinicians of the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers. As the proportion of never-smoker patients increases, this issue will become more urgent.HighlightsSmoking status is the most common risk factor used by clinicians to guide decision making, and guidelines often focus on this factor.Some clinicians also use their own heuristics for never-smokers, and this becomes particularly relevant for patients with lower risk symptoms.Clinicians are also concerned about the potential harms and risks associated with deploying resources on diagnostics for never-smokers.Some patients find it difficult to decide whether or not to go ahead with certain procedures due to efforts made by clinicians to downplay the risk of lung cancer.Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay between smoking history, clinical decision making, and patient anxiety in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.