Context

Little is known about the hopes patients with advanced (incurable) cancer have for their treatment.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to describe the treatment hopes of advanced cancer patients, factors associated with expressing specific hopes, and the persons with whom hopes are discussed.

Methods

We surveyed 265 advanced cancer patients in the U.S. about their hopes for treatment at the baseline and after three months. We developed a taxonomy of hopes for treatment, which two investigators used to independently code patient responses. We explored associations between hopes for cure and patient covariates.

Results

We developed eight categories of hopes. We were able to apply these codes reliably, and 95% of the patient's responses fit at least one hope category. The hope categories in order of descending baseline prevalence were as follows: quality of life, life extension, tumor stabilization, remission, milestone, unqualified cure, control not otherwise specified, and cure tempered by realism. Most patients reported discussing hopes with partners, family/friends, and oncologists; a minority reported discussing hopes with nurses, primary care physicians, clergy, or support groups. In logistic regression analysis, unqualified hopes for cure were more likely in younger patients and in those who did not endorse discussing their hopes with primary care physicians.

Conclusion

Advanced cancer patients harbor a range of treatment hopes. These hopes often are not discussed with key members of the health care team. Younger age and lack of discussion of hopes with primary care physicians may lead to less realistic hopes for cure.

Purpose

Rituximab and lenalidomide are effective for previously untreated and relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). However, long-term survival and predictive biomarkers are not well described.

Patients and methods

We conducted two phase II open-label trials involving 60 patients with previously untreated and R/R advanced-stage iNHL. Patients received lenalidomide and rituximab induction followed by continuous lenalidomide until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Correlative studies included plasma cytokine monitoring, flow cytometry of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC; days 0, 15, 30, and 60), and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) of pretreatment tumor biopsies.

Results

At a median follow-up of 63 months for previously untreated and 100 months for R/R, ORR was 82% for both. The 11 R/R patients who achieved complete remission remained in continuous remission for 16 to 141 months, thereafter. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the previously untreated and was 140 months (95% confidence interval, 53.4-140) in the R/R group. A mixed-effects linear regression model identified significant associations between Granzyme B⁺ (GranB⁺) CD8⁺ T cells and long-term complete response (LTCR; P = 5.3e-4). Furthermore, prior to start of therapy, treatment response could be predicted by B-cell and GranB⁺ CD8⁺ T-cell levels (% total lymphocytes).

Conclusions

Rituximab plus lenalidomide followed by continuous lenalidomide is effective with manageable toxicity in patients with previously untreated and R/R iNHL. This regimen produces durable remissions, even in heavily pretreated patients, with some lasting greater than 10 years. GranB⁺ CD8⁺ T cells, B cells, and plasma IFNγ allowed prediction of LTCR but need validation in larger trials.

Importance

Observational studies demonstrate links between patient-centered communication, quality of life (QOL), and aggressive treatments in advanced cancer, yet few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of communication interventions have been reported.

Objective

To determine whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers would promote patient-centered communication, and to estimate intervention effects on shared understanding, patient-physician relationships, QOL, and aggressive treatments in the last 30 days of life.

Design, setting, and participants

Cluster RCT at community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 265 community-dwelling adult patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer participated (mean age, 64.4 years, 146 [55.0%] female, 235 [89%] white; enrolled August 2012 to June 2014; followed for 3 years); 194 patients had participating caregivers.

Interventions

Oncologists received individualized communication training using standardized patient instructors while patients received question prompt lists and individualized communication coaching to identify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit. Both interventions focused on engaging patients in consultations, responding to emotions, informing patients about prognosis and treatment choices, and balanced framing of information. Control participants received no training.

Main outcomes and measures

The prespecified primary outcome was a composite measure of patient-centered communication coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (intervention group) or enrollment (control). Secondary outcomes included the patient-physician relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, QOL, and aggressive treatments and hospice use in the last 30 days of life.

Results

Data from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 patients (130 intervention) were analyzed. In fully adjusted models, the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary physician-patient communication end point (adjusted intervention effect, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant.

Conclusions and relevance

A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485627.

Abstract Background Communication about prognosis and treatment choices is essential for informed decision making in advanced cancer. This article describes an investigation designed to facilitate communication and decision making among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers. Methods/design The Values and Options in Cancer Care (VOICE) Study is a National Cancer Institute sponsored randomized controlled trial conducted in the Rochester/Buffalo, NY and Sacramento, CA regions. A total of 40 oncologists, approximately 400 patients with advanced cancer, and their family/friend caregivers (one per patient, when available) are expected to enroll in the study. Drawing upon ecological theory, the intervention uses a two-pronged approach: oncologists complete a multifaceted tailored educational intervention involving standardized patient instructors (SPIs), and patients and caregivers complete a coaching intervention to facilitate prioritizing and discussing questions and concerns. Follow-up data will be collected approximately quarterly for up to three years. Discussion The intervention is hypothesized to enhance patient-centered communication, quality of care, and patient outcomes. Analyses will examine the effects of the intervention on key elements of physician-patient-caregiver communication (primary outcomes), the physician-patient relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, patient well-being, and health service utilization (secondary outcomes). Trial registration Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01485627