Offering the Option of Randomized Clinical Trials to Cancer Patients Who Overestimate Their Prognoses with Standard Therapies

We have shown that cancer patients' routine (and understandable) overestimations of their prognoses with standard therapy may inhibit their accrual to randomized clinical trials for which standard therapies are the alternative. Patients' appreciation of the rationale for a trial, and the p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer investigation 1993, Vol.11 (1), p.57-62
Hauptverfasser: Sheldon, John M., Fetting, John H., Siminoff, Laura A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We have shown that cancer patients' routine (and understandable) overestimations of their prognoses with standard therapy may inhibit their accrual to randomized clinical trials for which standard therapies are the alternative. Patients' appreciation of the rationale for a trial, and the potential benefit of trial participation, can only be enhanced if they understand their prognoses with standard therapy. However, clinical investigators may be reluctant to provide specific information that deflates patients' estimates of their prognoses. The routine withholding of information regarding the modest benefits of standard therapies may avoid patient distress, but such physician behavior is paternalistic and may deleteriously affect trial accrual. On the other hand, the routine communication of prognostic information will cause significant distress among patients and will perhaps be destabilizing to that minority of patients who would otherwise shun this information or truly cannot psychologically tolerate it. A middle ground between these extremes is the stepwise disclosure of potentially distressing information, wherein specific prognostical information is offered by physicians to patients and actually provided or communicated only after patients first understand the nature of it and then indicate their interest in receiving it. A practical disadvantage of this approach is its additional demand on physicians' time. Therefore, if impracticality is to be avoided and yet the approach fostered, clinical investigators might consider developing trial-specific, written or audiovisual materials for patient education about general background information. These could be employed prior to patient-physician dialogue and so enable physicians to focus on more sensitive subjects, such as prognosis with standard therapy.
ISSN:0735-7907
1532-4192
DOI:10.3109/07357909309020261