Biomedical subjects
Martin H N Tattersall
Publications and source records attributed to Martin H N Tattersall.
Prognostic factors in patients with recently diagnosed incurable cancer: a systematic review.
GOALS OF WORK: To review the literature and develop a conceptual framework about prognostic factors for people presenting to medical oncologists with recently diagnosed incurable cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline was searched from January 2000 to October 2003 to identify articles testing associations between clinical or laboratory variables and survival time in adults with advanced solid tumours and median survival of 3 to 24 months. We recorded how frequently prognostic factors were significantly associated with survival in univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: There were 53 studies included. The factors associated with survival were organised into four categories related to attributes of the host the tumour, the treatment and the interactions between host, tumour and treatment (symptoms, quality of life, performance status and laboratory tests). Co-morbidity was consistently associated with shorter survival. Age and gender were not consistently associated with survival duration, except in lung cancer where females survived longer. Tumour-related factors associated with shorter survival included primary tumour (lung), metastatic site (liver, brain and visceral) and disease extent. Symptoms associated with shorter survival included those of the anorexia-cachexia syndrome, dyspnoea, pain and impaired physical well being. Performance status was strongly associated with survival in most studies. Laboratory tests associated with shorter survival included anaemia, thrombocytopenia, hypoalbuminaemia and elevated serum levels of both alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase. CONCLUSION: Prognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer can be conceptualised as attributes of the host, tumour, treatment and interactions between the three reflected in symptoms, quality of life performance status and laboratory tests.
Communication and phase 1 clinical trial recruitment.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Multidisciplinary team meetings: where is the value?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The needs of terminally ill cancer patients versus those of caregivers for information regarding prognosis and end-of-life issues.
BACKGROUND: The difficulty of negotiating the concerns of family members while also respecting the needs of the patient adds complexity to the task of discussing prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) issues with terminally ill cancer patients. The informational needs of caregivers may be different from those of the patients themselves with regard to these topics. However, to the authors' knowledge, this issue has received relatively little research attention. METHODS: The authors conducted focus groups and individual interviews with 19 patients with far advanced cancer and 24 caregivers from 3 palliative care (PC) services in Sydney and 22 PC health professionals (HPs) from around Australia. The focus groups and individual interviews were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Additional focus groups or individual interviews were conducted until no additional topics were raised. The participants' narratives were analyzed using qualitative methodology. RESULTS: The participants had varying views regarding whether patients and caregivers should be told different information concerning prognosis and EOL issues. Three themes were identified from the transcripts regarding meeting the informational needs of both the patients and caregivers: 1) the importance of consistency and openness, 2) the specific information needed to care for the patient, and 3) the value of having separate discussions with the patient and caregiver. A desire to restrict the patient's access to information by the caregiver or vice versa was reported by the HPs to be one of the most challenging issues when discussing prognosis and EOL issues. Three themes were identified with regard to this issue: 1) autonomy versus protection, 2) negotiating family dynamics, and 3) difficulty using interpreters. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study emphasized the importance of considering the distinct informational needs of caregivers, as well as those of the patient, when discussing prognosis and EOL issues.
Fostering coping and nurturing hope when discussing the future with terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers.
BACKGROUND: It is challenging for clinicians to foster coping and allow hope when discussing prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) issues with terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers. To the authors' knowledge, little research evidence is currently available to guide clinical practice. METHODS: The authors conducted focus groups and individual interviews with 19 patients with far advanced cancer and 24 caregivers from 3 palliative care (PC) services in Sydney, and 22 PC health professionals (HPs) from around Australia. The focus groups and individual interviews were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Additional focus groups or individual interviews were conducted until no additional topics were raised. The participants' narratives were analyzed using qualitative methodology. RESULTS: All participant groups believed there were ways of fostering coping and nurturing hope when discussing prognosis and EOL issues. Themes identified from the transcripts regarding ways of helping patients with a limited life expectancy to cope were: 1) emphasize what can be done (namely: a) control of physical symptoms; b) emotional support, care, and dignity; and c) practical support), 2) explore realistic goals, and 3) discuss day-to-day living. Two additional themes were identified regarding ways of fostering hope: the balance between truth telling and nurturing hope, and the spectrum of hope. All these themes were raised by the patients, caregivers, and HPs. However, there were some differences of opinion within the three participant groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that most participants believed there were ways of fostering coping and maintaining hope and that HPs have a role in facilitating this with terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers.
Discussing life expectancy with terminally ill cancer patients and their carers: a qualitative study.
GOALS OF WORK: There is uncertainty regarding the preferred content and phrasing of information when discussing life expectancy with terminally ill cancer patients and their carers. The objective of this study was to explore the various stakeholders' perceptions about these issues. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted focus groups and individual interviews with 19 patients with advanced cancer and 24 carers from three different palliative care (PC) services in Sydney and 22 PC health professionals (HPs) from ten different sites in Australia. The focus groups and individual interviews were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Further focus groups and/or individual interviews were conducted until no additional topics were raised. Participants' narratives were analysed using qualitative methodology. MAIN RESULTS: Participants' suggestions regarding the content of prognostic discussions included: explaining uncertainty and limitations, explaining the process involved with making survival predictions, and avoiding being too exact. Those patients and carers who wanted to be given a time frame mostly wanted to know how long the average person with their condition would live and/or be given a rough range. HPs had various views regarding ways to phrase life expectancy: days versus weeks versus months, likelihood of the patients being alive for certain events, a rough quantitative range and probabilities (e.g. 10% and 50% survival). However, most HPs said they would rarely if ever give statistical information to patients. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides some potential strategies, words and phrases which may inform discussions about life expectancy. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these findings.
Achieving equal standards in medical student education: is a national exit examination the answer?
Although it is commonly assumed that the quality of medical school education in Australia is uniformly high, there is no national process for assessing its outcomes. There is substantial variability in the content of medical school curricula, and the process of curriculum change is becoming more challenging because of intense competition for time and space in the course. A national exit examination could provide a uniform standard of assessment for all medical school graduates in Australia, as well as foreign graduates applying to work in Australia. Such an examination could assess medical school outcomes, monitor the effects of curriculum change, and provide a benchmark for new medical schools that would help medical curricula evolve to better meet society's needs.
Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients' views on the disclosure of prognosis.
PURPOSE: To identify preferences for the process of prognostic discussion among patients with incurable metastatic cancer and variables associated with those preferences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-six (58%) of 218 patients invited onto the study participated. Eligible patients were the consecutive metastatic cancer patients of 30 oncologists, who were diagnosed within 6 weeks to 6 months before recruitment, over 18 years of age, and without known mental illness. Patients completed a postal survey measuring patient preferences for the manner of delivery of prognostic information, including how doctors might instill hope. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of patients wanted their doctor to be realistic, provide an opportunity to ask questions, and acknowledge them as an individual when discussing prognosis. Doctor behaviors rated the most hope giving included offering the most up to date treatment (90%), appearing to know all there is to know about the patient's cancer (87%), and saying that pain will be controlled (87%). The majority of patients indicated that the doctor appearing to be nervous or uncomfortable (91%), giving the prognosis to the family first (87%), or using euphemisms (82%) would not facilitate hope. Factor analysis revealed six general styles and three hope factors; the most strongly endorsed styles were realism and individualized care and the expert/positive/collaborative approach. A range of demographic, psychological, and disease factors were associated with preferred general and hope-giving styles, including anxiety, information-seeking behavior, expected survival, and age. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients preferred a realistic and individualized approach from the cancer specialist and detailed information when discussing prognosis.
Discussing end-of-life issues with terminally ill cancer patients and their carers: a qualitative study.
GOALS OF WORK: Discussing end-of-life issues is of key importance to terminally ill cancer patients and their families, and a challenging topic for both health professionals and patients/carers. There is a lack of research evidence in the literature to guide clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore the optimal content and phrasing of information when discussing the dying process and end-of-life issues with terminally ill cancer patients and their carers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted focus groups and individual interviews with 19 palliative care patients and 24 carers from three palliative care services in Sydney, and 22 palliative care health professionals from around Australia. The focus groups and individual interviews were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Further focus groups and/or individual interviews were conducted until no additional topics were raised. Participants' narratives were analysed using qualitative methodology. MAIN RESULTS: Distinct content areas emerged for discussing end-of-life issues: treatment decisions at the end-of-life; potential future symptoms; preferences for place of death; the process of dying; what needs to be done immediately after death; and existential issues. When discussing the process of dying participants recommended: exploring the persons' fears about dying and dispelling myths; describing the final days and the likely unconscious period; and the reduced need for food and fluids. Many participants identified the dilemma regarding whether to discuss potential complications around the time of death. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides strategies, words and phrases which may inform discussions about the process of dying and end-of-life issues. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these findings.
When and how to initiate discussion about prognosis and end-of-life issues with terminally ill patients.
The aim of this study was to explore by whom, how, and when discussions about prognosis and end-of-life issues should be initiated with terminally ill patients, and the context in which these issues can be optimally discussed. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 19 palliative care (PC) patients, 24 carers, and 22 PC health professionals (HPs). Participants had disparate views regarding by whom and when such discussions should be initiated, although a similar range of perspectives was expressed by all participant groups. Four main approaches were identified: wait for the patient/carer to raise the topic; HPs to offer all PC patients and their carers the opportunity to discuss the future (preferred by the majority of participants); HPs to initiate the discussion when the patient/family need to know; or HPs to initiate the discussion when the patient/family seem ready. Four themes emerged regarding the optimal context of the discussion: importance of the relationship with HP, clarifying the patient/carers' understanding and how much detail they want to know, negotiating who should be present during the discussion, and who should deliver the information. Initiating prognostic discussions with terminally ill patients requires considerable skill and sensitivity. Communication skills training for HPs may be required to optimize such discussions.
Cancer consultation preparation package: changing patients but not physicians is not enough.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated a cancer consultation preparation package (CCPP) designed to facilitate patient involvement in the oncology consultation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 164 cancer patients (67% response rate) were randomly assigned to receive the CCPP or a control booklet at least 48 hours before their first oncology appointment. The CCPP included a question prompt sheet, booklets on clinical decision making and patient rights, and an introduction to the clinic. The control booklet contained only the introduction to the clinic. Physicians were blinded to which intervention patients received. Patients completed questionnaires immediately after the consultation and 1 month later. Consultations were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and coded. RESULTS: All but one patient read the information. Before the consultation, intervention patients were significantly more anxious than were controls (mean, 42 v 38; P = .04); however anxiety was equivalent at follow-up. The CCPP was reported as being significantly more useful to family members than the control booklet (P = .004). Patients receiving the intervention asked significantly more questions (11 v seven questions; P = .005), tended to interrupt the physician more (1.01 v 0.71 interruptions; P = .08), and challenged information significantly more often (twice v once; P = .05). Patients receiving the CCPP were less likely to achieve their preferred decision making style (22%) than were controls (35%; P = .06). CONCLUSION: This CCPP influences patients' consultation behavior and does not increase anxiety in the long-term. However, this intervention, without physician endorsement, reduced the percentage of patients whose preferred involvement in decision making was achieved.
Treatment decision aids in advanced cancer: when the goal is not cure and the answer is not clear.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cancer patient preferences for communication of prognosis in the metastatic setting.
PURPOSE: To identify preferences for and predictors of prognostic information among patients with incurable metastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-six metastatic cancer patients seeing 30 oncologists at 12 outpatient clinics in New South Wales, Australia, participated in the study. Patients were diagnosed with incurable metastatic disease within 6 weeks to 6 months of recruitment. Patients completed a survey eliciting their preferences for prognostic information, including type, quantity, mode, and timing of presentation; anxiety and depression levels; and information and involvement preferences. RESULTS: More than 95% of patients wanted information about side effects, symptoms, and treatment options. The majority wanted to know longest survival time with treatment (85%), 5-year survival rates (80%), and average survival (81%). Words and numbers were preferred over pie charts or graphs. Fifty-nine percent (59%) wanted to discuss expected survival when first diagnosed with metastatic disease. Thirty-eight percent and 44% wanted to negotiate when expected survival and dying, respectively, were discussed. Patients with higher depression scores were more likely to want to know shortest time to live without treatment (P =.047) and average survival (P =.049). Lower depression levels were significantly associated with never wanting to discuss expected survival (P =.03). Patients with an expected survival of years were more likely to want to discuss life expectancy when first diagnosed with metastases (P =.02). CONCLUSION: Most metastatic cancer patients want detailed prognostic information but prefer to negotiate the extent, format, and timing of the information they receive from their oncologists.
Multidisciplinary care for women with early breast cancer in the Australian context.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Education and role modelling for clinical decisions with female cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: Patients vary widely in their preferences and capacity for participating in treatment decision-making. There are few interventions targeting patient understanding of how doctors make decisions and shared decision-making. This randomized trial investigates the effects of providing cancer patients with a package designed to facilitate shared decision-making prior to seeing their oncologist. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five female cancer patients were randomized to receive either the package (booklet and 15-min video) or a booklet on living with cancer, before their initial consultation. Participants completed questionnaires prior to the intervention, immediately after the oncology consultation, and 2 weeks and 6 months later. The first consultation with the oncologist was audio-taped and transcribed. RESULTS: Patients receiving the package were more likely than controls to declare their information and treatment preferences in the consultation, and their perspectives on the costs, side-effects and benefits of treatment. Doctors introduced considerably more new themes in the consultations with intervention subjects than they did with controls; no other differences in doctor behaviour were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This short intervention successfully shifted patient and doctor behaviour closer to the shared decision-making model, although it did not alter patients' preferences for information or involvement.
Expression of Fas and FasL in human serous ovarian epithelial tumors.
The expression of Fas and FasL was studied in 86 patients with benign, borderline, and malignant serous ovarian lesions. Four normal ovaries, and monolayer epithelial cultures from a human fetal ovary, a borderline, and a serous adenocarcinoma were used for comparison. Expression of Fas and FasL was studied immunohistochemically and flowcytometrically. Fas was expressed in all 90 lesions; FasL in 57 lesions, including 2 normal ovaries. Fas expression was significantly increased in borderline tumors compared with benign (P = 0.005, t = -2.94) or malignant serous tumors (P = 0.0001, t = 4.15). FasL expression was significantly increased in malignant tumors compared with benign (P = 0.039, t = -2.10) and borderline tumors (P = 0.0016, t = -3.33). Flow cytometry showed a range of Fas expression in short-term cultures isolated from normal, borderline, and malignant ovarian serous tissue; in the few samples studied, FasL was not expressed. Expression in three serous ovarian cell lines was similar. Fas and FasL expression differed throughout the spectrum of ovarian lesions. FasL expression was increased in malignant tumors, and Fas expression was increased in borderline tumors. Changes in Fas/FasL expression in ovarian surface epithelium might play a functional role in the biology of ovarian tumors.
Octreotide therapy for the Sjögren syndrome.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.