Systematic screening of perception of curability among patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal analysis.

12110 Background: Clinicians do not routinely assess patients’ illness understanding despite its importance in decision making. Systematic screening of illness understanding is a novel approach that normalizes discussion of this sensitive topic, helps identify patients with information needs and allows clinicians to monitor and support their patients’ understanding over time. In this study, we examined the changes in perception of curability over time in patients who completed systematic screening at our supportive care clinic (SCC). Methods: We implemented universal electronic systematic screening of illness understanding in our SCC using two questions from the Prognosis and Treatment Perception Questionnaire at consultation and every 2 months. We included all advanced cancer patients who completed screening at their consultation and at least one follow-up visit within one year. The primary outcome was patients’ perception of curability, which was categorized as accurate if they reported the likelihood of cure as < 25%. Patients were grouped into one of four categories based on responses at their first and last SCC visits: accurate-accurate, accurate-inaccurate, inaccurate-accurate and inaccurate-inaccurate. We examined patient characteristics associated with the inaccurate-inaccurate group versus all others using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: 432 patients (mean age 58 [SD 13], female n=248 [57.4%], white n=331 [76.6%]) were included. The mean number of SCC visits was 2.69 [SD 0.9] and the median duration between the first and last SCC visits was 157 days [IQR 129-194]. At visits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5+, 34% [147/432], 37% [159/432], 36% [71/197], 38% [30/78] and 46% [11/24] of patients had an accurate understanding of their curability (p=0.24), respectively. Comparing the first and last visit, 233 [54%] were inaccurate-inaccurate, 119 [28%] were accurate-accurate, 52 [12%] were inaccurate-accurate and 28 [6%] were accurate-inaccurate. Asian race and greater well-being at baseline were associated with being inaccurate-inaccurate (Table). Conclusions: Systematic screening identified that only ~1 in 3 advanced cancer patients had an accurate understanding of their curability at SCC consultation and this did not improve significantly over time. Certain subgroups were more likely to remain inaccurate at last follow-up. Our findings highlight the need to systematically screen for illness understanding and to work towards bridging information gaps with better communication and coping support. Multivariate analysis of patient characteristics associated with being in the inaccurate-inaccurate group. Patient Characteristic Odds Ratio 95% CI p-value Race (versus White) Asian 3.92 1.52-12.2 0.009 Black or African American 1.91 0.90-4.26 0.1 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Well-Being 0.82 0.73-0.93 0.003

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.12110
Primary Topic
Digital Imaging in Medicine
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Systematic screening of perception of curability among patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal analysis.

Yvonne Heung, Kayley Ancy, David Hui, Eduardo D Bruera et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Digital Imaging in Medicine
article

Systematic screening of perception of curability among patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal analysis.

Yvonne Heung, Kayley Ancy, David Hui, Eduardo D Bruera, Donna S. Zhukovsky, Yi Huang, Grecia Aldana Singleton
article en

Abstract

12110 Background: Clinicians do not routinely assess patients’ illness understanding despite its importance in decision making. Systematic screening of illness understanding is a novel approach that normalizes discussion of this sensitive topic, helps identify patients with information needs and allows clinicians to monitor and support their patients’ understanding over time. In this study, we examined the changes in perception of curability over time in patients who completed systematic screening at our supportive care clinic (SCC). Methods: We implemented universal electronic systematic screening of illness understanding in our SCC using two questions from the Prognosis and Treatment Perception Questionnaire at consultation and every 2 months. We included all advanced cancer patients who completed screening at their consultation and at least one follow-up visit within one year. The primary outcome was patients’ perception of curability, which was categorized as accurate if they reported the likelihood of cure as < 25%. Patients were grouped into one of four categories based on responses at their first and last SCC visits: accurate-accurate, accurate-inaccurate, inaccurate-accurate and inaccurate-inaccurate. We examined patient characteristics associated with the inaccurate-inaccurate group versus all others using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: 432 patients (mean age 58 [SD 13], female n=248 [57.4%], white n=331 [76.6%]) were included. The mean number of SCC visits was 2.69 [SD 0.9] and the median duration between the first and last SCC visits was 157 days [IQR 129-194]. At visits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5+, 34% [147/432], 37% [159/432], 36% [71/197], 38% [30/78] and 46% [11/24] of patients had an accurate understanding of their curability (p=0.24), respectively. Comparing the first and last visit, 233 [54%] were inaccurate-inaccurate, 119 [28%] were accurate-accurate, 52 [12%] were inaccurate-accurate and 28 [6%] were accurate-inaccurate. Asian race and greater well-being at baseline were associated with being inaccurate-inaccurate (Table). Conclusions: Systematic screening identified that only ~1 in 3 advanced cancer patients had an accurate understanding of their curability at SCC consultation and this did not improve significantly over time. Certain subgroups were more likely to remain inaccurate at last follow-up. Our findings highlight the need to systematically screen for illness understanding and to work towards bridging information gaps with better communication and coping support. Multivariate analysis of patient characteristics associated with being in the inaccurate-inaccurate group. Patient Characteristic Odds Ratio 95% CI p-value Race (versus White) Asian 3.92 1.52-12.2 0.009 Black or African American 1.91 0.90-4.26 0.1 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Well-Being 0.82 0.73-0.93 0.003

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(16_suppl)
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Digital Imaging in Medicine
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.