Dataset Information

Medical Decision-Making Incapacity among Newly Diagnosed Older Patients with Hematological Malignancy Receiving First Line Chemotherapy: A Cross-Sectional Study of Patients and Physicians.

ABSTRACT: Decision-making capacity to provide informed consent regarding treatment is essential among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to identify the frequency of decision-making incapacity among newly diagnosed older patients with hematological malignancy receiving first-line chemotherapy, to examine factors associated with incapacity and assess physicians' perceptions of patients' decision-making incapacity.Consecutive patients aged 65 years or over with a primary diagnosis of malignant lymphoma or multiple myeloma were recruited. Decision-making capacity was assessed using the Structured Interview for Competency and Incompetency Assessment Testing and Ranking Inventory-Revised (SICIATRI-R). Cognitive impairment, depressive condition and other possible associated factors were also evaluated.Among 139 eligible patients registered for this study, 114 completed the survey. Of these, 28 (25%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 17%-32%) were judged as having some extent of decision-making incompetency according to SICIATRI-R. Higher levels of cognitive impairment and increasing age were significantly associated with decision-making incapacity. Physicians experienced difficulty performing competency assessment (Cohen's kappa -0.54).Decision-making incapacity was found to be a common and under-recognized problem in older patients with cancer. Age and assessment of cognitive impairment may provide the opportunity to find patients that are at a high risk of showing decision-making incapacity.

SUBMITTER: Sugano K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4546640 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlioblastoma is the most common primary malignant brain tumor. Recent studies have shown that hematological biomarkers have become a powerful tool for predicting the prognosis of patients with cancer. However, most studies have only investigated the prognostic value of unilateral hematological markers. Therefore, we aimed to establish a comprehensive prognostic scoring system containing hematological markers to improve the prognostic prediction in patients with glioblastoma.Patients and methodsA total of 326 patients with glioblastoma were randomly divided into a training set and external validation set to develop and validate a hematological-related prognostic scoring system (HRPSS). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine the optimal covariates that constructed the scoring system. Furthermore, a quantitative survival-predicting nomogram was constructed based on the hematological risk score (HRS) derived from the HRPSS. The results of the nomogram were validated using bootstrap resampling and the external validation set. Finally, we further explored the relationship between the HRS and clinical prognostic factors.ResultsThe optimal cutoff value for the HRS was 0.839. The patients were successfully classified into different prognostic groups based on their HRSs (P < 0.001). The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the HRS were 0.67, 0.73, and 0.78 at 0.5, 1, and 2 years, respectively. Additionally, the 0.5-, 1-y, and 2-y AUCs of the HRS were 0.51, 0.70, and 0.79, respectively, which validated the robust prognostic performance of the HRS in the external validation set. Based on both univariate and multivariate analyses, the HRS possessed a strong ability to predict overall survival in both the training set and validation set. The nomogram based on the HRS displayed good discrimination with a C-index of 0.81 and good calibration. In the validation cohort, a high C-index value of 0.82 could still be achieved. In all the data, the HRS showed specific correlations with age, first presenting symptoms, isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation status and tumor location, and successfully stratified them into different risk subgroups.ConclusionsThe HRPSS is a powerful tool for accurate prognostic prediction in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

Project description:Men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer face multiple treatment options, each with distinctive side effects that have significant implications for post-treatment quality of life. Healing Choices for Men with Prostate Cancer is a multimedia educational and decision aid program. This nation-wide randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of Healing Choices on reducing decisional conflict and distress. Eligible prostate cancer patients who called the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) were invited to participate. After a baseline interview, participants were randomized to usual personalized consultation with a CIS specialist (comparison condition) or CIS personalized consultation plus the Healing Choices program (intervention condition). The Decision Conflict Scale and Impact of Event Scale assessed decisional conflict about prostate cancer treatment and cancer-related distress, respectively. Analyses evaluated group differences at 2 months postenrollment. Hypothesized moderation of intervention effects by demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. The final sample consisted of N = 349 participants (intervention: n = 181; comparison n = 168). Men were on average 64 years old, primarily White, and well educated. The difference in total decisional conflict was not significant (DCS total score; F[1,311] = .99, p = .32). The difference in cancer-related distress at 2 months between the intervention and the comparison groups was not significant (F[1,337] = .01, p = .93). Evaluation of specific decision processes indicated a significant effect on levels of perceived decisional support (intervention, M = 34.8, SD = 15.7; comparison, M = 38.3, SD = 16.1; F[1,337] = 3.74, p = .05). The intervention effect was greatest for nonwhite minority participants (b = -9.65, SE = 4.67) and those with lower educational attainment (b = 3.87, SE = 2.21). This interactive, comprehensive education and decision aid program may be most effective for a subset of prostate cancer patients in need of educational and decisional support.

Project description:ObjectivesMen diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer require standardised and robust long-term prognostic information to help them decide on management. Most currently-used tools use short-term and surrogate outcomes. We explored the evidence base in the literature on available pre-treatment, prognostic models built around long-term survival and assess the accuracy, generalisability and clinical availability of these models.DesignSystematic literature review, pre-specified and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018086394).Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 through February 2018, using previously-tested search terms.Eligibility criteriaInclusion required a multivariable model prognostic model for non-metastatic prostate cancer, using long-term survival data (defined as ≥5 years), which was not treatment-specific and usable at the point of diagnosis.Data extraction and synthesisTitle, abstract and full-text screening were sequentially performed by three reviewers. Data extraction was performed for items in the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist. Individual studies were assessed using the new Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool.ResultsDatabase searches yielded 6581 studies after deduplication. Twelve studies were included in the final review. Nine were model development studies using data from over 231 888 men. However, only six of the nine studies included any conservatively managed cases and only three of the nine included treatment as a predictor variable. Every included study had at least one parameter for which there was high risk of bias, with failure to report accuracy, and inadequate reporting of missing data common failings. Three external validation studies were included, reporting two available models: The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score and the Cambridge Prognostic Groups. Neither included treatment effect, and both had potential flaws in design, but represent the most robust and usable prognostic models currently available.ConclusionFew long-term prognostic models exist to inform decision-making at diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer. Improved models are required to inform management and avoid undertreatment and overtreatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Dataset Information

Medical Decision-Making Incapacity among Newly Diagnosed Older Patients with Hematological Malignancy Receiving First Line Chemotherapy: A Cross-Sectional Study of Patients and Physicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets