Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29883453›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Agreement between patients' and radiation oncologists' cancer diagnosis and prognosis perceptions: A cross sectional study in Japan.

Lisa Jane Mackenzie, Mariko Leanne Carey, Eiji Suzuki, Robert William Sanson-Fisher, Hiromi Asada, Masakazu Ogura, Catherine D'Este, Michio Yoshimura, Masakazu Toi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Perceptions and recall of treatment for prostate cancer: A survey of two populations.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lisa Jane MackenzieSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1286-5242
Mariko Leanne CareySchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Eiji SuzukiBreast Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Robert William Sanson-FisherSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Hiromi AsadaDepartment of Nursing, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Masakazu OguraDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image Applied Therapy, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Catherine D'EsteNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Acton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Michio YoshimuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image Applied Therapy, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Masakazu ToiBreast Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed agreement between radiation oncologist- and cancer patient-reported perceptions about cancer diagnosis, time since diagnosis, treatment purpose, and whether life expectancy had been discussed; and described preferences for prognosis discussions. Adult cancer patients receiving radiotherapy at a Japanese hospital were invited to complete a touchscreen tablet survey. Patient survey responses were linked and comparisons made with a survey completed by their radiation oncologist. Among 146 cancer patient-oncologist dyads, there was almost perfect agreement on cancer diagnosis (ĸ = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94), substantial agreement on time since diagnosis (ĸ = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.83) and moderate agreement on whether treatment goal was curative or palliative (ĸ = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57; all p's < 0.0001). Agreement about whether a life expectancy discussion had occurred was less than expected by chance (κ = -0.06, p = 0.9). Radiation oncologists reported that they had spoken to over two thirds of patients about this, whilst less than one third of patients stated that this discussion had occurred with their radiation oncologist. Over half of the patients who had not discussed life expectancy wanted to. Patients had variable preferences for whether they (80%), their radiation oncologist (78%) or their partner/family (52%) should decide whether they discuss their life expectancy. Although patient self-reported information about diagnosis and time since diagnosis appears to be reasonably accurate (compared with clinician-reported information), limitations of self-reported data about prognostic discussions were highlighted by poor agreement between patient- and clinician-reported information about whether prognostic discussions have occurred. Additional support is needed to improve prognosis communication and understanding in radiation oncology settings.

Indexed as

Radiation OncologistsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansJapanLife ExpectancyMaleNeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsPrognosisSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29883453
PMCPMC5993258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.