Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26323640›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2016

Terminal Versus Advanced Cancer: Do the General Population and Health Care Professionals Share a Common Language?

Sang Hyuck Kim, Dong Wook Shin, So Young Kim, Hyung Kook Yang, Eunjoo Nam, Hyun Jung Jho, Eunmi Ahn, Be Long Cho, Keeho Park, Jong-Hyock Park

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Strategies for living well with hormone-responsive advanced prostate cancer-a qualitative exploration.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sang Hyuck KimDepartment of Family Medicine and Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Dong Wook ShinDepartment of Family Medicine and Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
So Young KimNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Hyung Kook YangNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Eunjoo NamCancer Policy Branch, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Hyun Jung JhoHospice and Palliative Care Branch, National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Eunmi AhnHospice and Palliative Care Branch, National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Be Long ChoDepartment of Family Medicine and Cancer Survivorship Clinic, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Keeho ParkCancer Policy Branch, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Jong-Hyock ParkNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
National Cancer Center · KRSeoul National University Hospital · KRChungbuk National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany end-of-life care studies are based on the assumption that there is a shared definition of language concerning the stage of cancer. However, studies suggest that patients and their families often misperceive patients' cancer stages and prognoses. Discrimination between advanced cancer and terminal cancer is important because the treatment goals are different. In this study, we evaluated the understanding of the definition of advanced versus terminal cancer of the general population and determined associated socio-demographic factors. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 2,000 persons from the general population were systematically recruited. We used a clinical vignette of a hypothetical advanced breast cancer patient, but whose cancer was not considered terminal. After presenting the brief history of the case, we asked respondents to choose the correct cancer stage from a choice of early, advanced, terminal stage, and don't know. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed to determine sociodemographic factors associated with the correct response, as defined in terms of medical context.

resultsOnly 411 respondents (20.6%) chose "advanced," while most respondents (74.5%) chose "terminal stage" as the stage of the hypothetical patient, and a small proportion of respondents chose "early stage" (0.7%) or "don't know" (4.4%). Multinomial logistic regression analysis found no consistent or strong predictor.

conclusionA large proportion of the general population could not differentiate advanced cancer from terminal cancer. Continuous effort is required in order to establish common and shared definitions of the different cancer stages and to increase understanding of cancer staging for the general population.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNeoplasm StagingTerminal CareTerminology as TopicAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvanced cancerGeneral populationLanguageNeoplasmsShared decisionTerminal cancer

Identifiers

PMID26323640
PMCPMC4843735
OpenAlexW1956792798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.