Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Pepig Gabriele Thanner MS Office and project management consulting, Neutraubling, Germany.
BMJ Open. 2024 Jun 18;14(6):e081661. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081661.
Oncologists need competence in clinical prognostication to deliver appropriate care to patients with cancer. Most studies on prognostication have been restricted to patients in palliative care settings. This paper investigates (1) the prognostic accuracy of physicians regarding a broad cohort of patients with cancer with a median life expectancy of >2 years and (2) whether a prognosis training can improve prognostication.
Prospective single-centre study comprising 3 phases, each lasting 1 month.
Large teaching hospital, department of oncology and haematology, Germany.
18 physicians with a professional experience from entry level to 34 years. 736 patients with oncological and malignant haematological diseases.
Baseline prognostication abilities were recorded during an 'untrained' phase 1. As an intervention, a specific prognosis-training programme was implemented prior to phases 2 and 3. In phase 3, physicians had to provide additional estimates with the inclusion of electronic prognostic tools.
Prognostic estimates (PE) were collected using 'standard' surprise question (SQ), 'probabilistic' SQ (both for short-term prognostication up to 6 months) and clinician prediction of survival (CPS) (for long-term prognostication). Estimated prognoses were compared with observed survival. Phase 1 was compared with phases 2 and 3.
We included 2427 PE for SQ, 1506 for CPS and 800 for probabilistic SQ. Median OS was 2.5 years. SQ accuracy improved significantly (p<0.001) from 72.6% in phase 1 to 84.3% in phase 3. Probabilistic SQ in phase 3 showed 83.1% accuracy. CPS accuracy was 25.9% and could not be significantly improved. (Electronic) prognostic tools-used alone-performed significantly worse (p<0.0005) than physicians and-used by the clinicians-did not improve their performance.
A specific prognosis-training programme could improve short-term and intermediate-term prognostication. Improvement of long-term prognostication was not possible. Inexperienced residents as well as experienced oncologists benefited from training.
肿瘤学家需要具备临床预后能力,以便为癌症患者提供适当的护理。大多数预后研究仅限于姑息治疗环境中的患者。本文研究了(1)医生对具有 >2 年中位生存期的广泛癌症患者队列的预后准确性,以及(2)预后培训是否可以改善预后。
包括 3 个阶段的前瞻性单中心研究,每个阶段持续 1 个月。
德国大型教学医院肿瘤科和血液科。
18 名具有入门级至 34 年专业经验的医生。736 名患有肿瘤和恶性血液病的患者。
在“未培训”阶段 1 记录基线预后能力。作为干预措施,在阶段 2 和 3 之前实施了专门的预后培训计划。在第 3 阶段,医生必须使用电子预后工具提供额外的估计。
使用“标准”意外问题(SQ)、“概率”SQ(均用于短期预后,时间长达 6 个月)和临床医生预测生存率(CPS)(用于长期预后)收集预后估计(PE)。预测的预后与观察到的生存率进行比较。将第 1 阶段与第 2 阶段和第 3 阶段进行比较。
我们纳入了 2427 个 SQ 的 PE、1506 个 CPS 和 800 个概率 SQ。中位 OS 为 2.5 年。SQ 准确性显著提高(p<0.001),从第 1 阶段的 72.6%提高到第 3 阶段的 84.3%。第 3 阶段的概率 SQ 准确率为 83.1%。CPS 的准确率为 25.9%,无法显著提高。(电子)单独使用的预后工具-表现明显差于医生(p<0.0005)-由临床医生使用-并没有提高他们的表现。
专门的预后培训计划可以提高短期和中期预后。长期预后的改善是不可能的。经验不足的住院医师和经验丰富的肿瘤学家都从培训中受益。