Slevin M L, Stubbs L, Plant H J, Wilson P, Gregory W M, Armes P J, Downer S M
Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Department of Medical Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London.
BMJ. 1990 Jun 2;300(6737):1458-60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458.
To compare responses of patients with cancer with those of a matched control group, cancer specialists, general practitioners, and cancer nurses in assessing personal cost-benefit of chemotherapy.
Prospective study of consecutively recruited patients with cancer and other groups by questionnaire; half of the patients received the questionnaire again three months after starting treatment.
A medical oncology ward of a London teaching hospital.
106 Patients with newly diagnosed solid tumours referred to the unit for consideration of treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy, 100 of whom were able to complete the questionnaire. 100 Matched controls, 315 cancer doctors (238 radiotherapists and 77 medical oncologists), 1500 randomly chosen general practitioners, and 1000 randomly chosen cancer nurses.
Percentage chance of cure, prolonging life, or palliation of symptoms required to make treatment worth while with two hypothetical chemotherapy treatments, with severe and mild side effects respectively.
Respondents to the questionnaire comprised 100 patients, 100 controls, 60 (78%) medical oncologists, 88 (37%) radiotherapists, 790 (53%) general practitioners, and 303 (30%) cancer nurses. Most patients were willing to accept intensive chemotherapy for a very small chance of benefit. The median benefit required to make the hypothetical intensive treatments worth while for patients compared with controls were: for chance of a cure (range 1 to 100%) 1% v 50%, for prolonging life (range three months to five years) 12 months v 24-60 months, and for relief of symptoms (range 1 to 100%) 10% v 75% respectively. There were no significant differences in the responses of the 50 patients completing the questionnaire on a second occasion. Doctors and nurses were less likely to accept radical treatment for minimal benefit compared with the patients (median scores 10-50%, 12-24 months, and 50-75%, for chance of cure, prolonging life, and relief of symptoms respectively). Significantly more patients than controls accepted treatments giving the minimal benefit for each category (cure 53.1 v 19.0%, 67.0 v 35.0%; prolonging life 42.1 v 10.0%, 53.0 v 25.0%; relief of symptoms 42.6 v 10.0%, 58.7 v 19.0% for intensive and mild treatments respectively, p less than 0.001) as was the case for comparison of patients with other groups.
Patients with cancer are much more likely to opt for radical treatment with minimal chance of benefit than people who do not have cancer, including medical and nursing professionals. This could be taken into account when discussing treatment options with patients and their relatives.
比较癌症患者与匹配的对照组、癌症专科医生、全科医生及癌症护士在评估化疗个人成本效益方面的反应。
通过问卷调查对连续招募的癌症患者及其他组进行前瞻性研究;一半患者在开始治疗三个月后再次接受问卷调查。
伦敦一家教学医院的肿瘤内科病房。
106例新诊断为实体瘤并被转至该科室考虑进行细胞毒性化疗的患者,其中100例能够完成问卷调查。100名匹配的对照组人员、315名癌症医生(238名放射肿瘤学家和77名肿瘤内科医生)、1500名随机选取的全科医生以及1000名随机选取的癌症护士。
两种假设的化疗方案(分别伴有严重和轻微副作用)为使治疗值得进行所需的治愈、延长生命或缓解症状的百分比可能性。
问卷的回复者包括100例患者、100名对照组人员、60名(78%)肿瘤内科医生、88名(37%)放射肿瘤学家、790名(53%)全科医生以及303名(30%)癌症护士。大多数患者愿意接受强化化疗,即便获益机会极小。与对照组相比,使假设的强化治疗对患者而言值得进行所需的获益中位数为:治愈机会(范围1%至100%)为1%对50%,延长生命(范围三个月至五年)为12个月对24 - 60个月,缓解症状(范围1%至100%)为10%对75%。50例第二次完成问卷的患者的回答无显著差异。与患者相比,医生和护士接受极小获益的根治性治疗的可能性较小(治愈机会、延长生命和缓解症状的中位数得分分别为10 - 50%、12 - 24个月和50 - 75%)。与对照组相比,接受每种类型最小获益治疗的患者显著更多(强化治疗和温和治疗的治愈分别为53.1%对19.0%、67.0%对35.0%;延长生命分别为42.1%对10.0%、53.0%对25.0%;缓解症状分别为42.6%对10.0%、58.7%对19.0%,p小于0.001),患者与其他组比较的情况也是如此。
与没有癌症的人(包括医学和护理专业人员)相比,癌症患者更有可能选择获益机会极小的根治性治疗。在与患者及其亲属讨论治疗方案时可考虑这一点。