Outcomes of prognostic disclosure: Effects on advanced cancer patients’ prognostic understanding, mental health, and relationship with their oncologist.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9519 Background: Many oncologists are reluctant to discuss life expectancy with advanced cancer patients. We examined the frequency of prognostic disclosure and its impact on patients’ prognostic understanding, the patient-doctor relationship, and psychological distress. Methods: Coping with Cancer was an NCI-funded, multi-site prospective cohort of 726 patients with advanced incurable cancer, enrolled 2002-2008. At baseline, patients were asked if their oncologist had ever discussed prognosis, and if so what estimate was communicated. Patients also estimated their prognosis. The therapeutic alliance scale measured patient-doctor relationship, and the McGill QOL instrument assessed symptoms of depression and anxiety. Multivariable analyses (MVA) assessed relationships between prognostic disclosure and psychological symptoms, controlling for confounds. Results: Among this cohort of terminally ill patients (median survival 4mos), most (72%) wanted to be told their life expectancy. Only 19.8% (104/525) of patients had received a prognostic estimate from their oncologist (median estimate 6mos; IQR 6-15mos). When queried about factors informing their prognostic understanding, 85.9% of patients cited personal or religious beliefs; only 11.7% cited a physician’s estimate. Of the 299 patients willing to estimate their life expectancy, patients who had been previously informed of their prognosis were substantially more realistic in their own estimate (median 12mos v 48mos, Wilcoxon test p<0.001). Moreover, patients’ and oncologists’ prognostic estimates were significantly correlated (ρ=0.49, p<0.001). Prognostic disclosure was not associated with poor patient-doctor relationship rating (Fisher’s Exact, p=0.625), nor was it associated with depressive symptoms (β 0.06, p=0.242) or anxiety (β 0.06, p=0.234) in MVA. Conclusions: Few advanced cancer patients are informed of their life expectancy, although most want this information. Prognostic disclosure is associated with substantial improvement in patients’ prognostic understanding, without compromising the patient-doctor relationship or increasing psychological distress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".