Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32380962›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Head and neck cancer patients' preferences for individualized prognostic information: a focus group study.

Arta Hoesseini, Emilie A C Dronkers, Aniel Sewnaik, Jose A U Hardillo, Robert J Baatenburg de Jong, Marinella P J Offerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Validation of the prognostic model "oncologiq palliative" for head and neck cancer patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  7. Psychological experience of discharge readiness in head and neck cancer patients undergoing particle radiotherapy: A qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. How do patients with head and neck cancer and low skeletal muscle mass experience cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy? A qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Decisional Conflict in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Understanding compassionate care from the patient perspective: Highlighting the experience of head and neck cancer care.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2023
    Article
  19. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Arta HoesseiniDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. a.hoesseini@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8049-6701
Emilie A C DronkersDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Aniel SewnaikDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jose A U HardilloDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Robert J Baatenburg de JongDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marinella P J OffermanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHead and Neck cancer (HNC) is characterized by significant mortality and morbidity. Treatment is often invasive and interferes with vital functions, resulting in a delicate balance between survival benefit and deterioration in quality of life (QoL). Therefore, including prognostic information during patient counseling can be of great importance. The first aim of this study was to explore HNC patients' preferences for receiving prognostic information: both qualitative (general terms like "curable cancer"), and quantitative information (numbers, percentages). The second aim of this study was to explore patients' views on "OncologIQ", a prognostic model developed to estimate overall survival in newly diagnosed HNC patients.

methodsWe conducted a single center qualitative study by organizing five focus groups with HNC patients (n = 21) and their caregivers (n = 19), categorized in: 1) small laryngeal carcinomas treated with radiotherapy or laser, 2) extensive oral cavity procedures, 3) total laryngectomy, 4) chemoradiation, 5) other treatments. The patients' perspective was the main focus. The interview guide consisted of two main topics: life-expectancy and the prognostic model OncologIQ. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed and coded. Themes were derived using content analysis.

resultsWhile all patients considered it somewhat to very important to receive information about their life-expectancy, only some of them wanted to receive quantitative information. Disclosing qualitative prognostic information like "the cancer is curable" would give enough reassurance for most patients. Overall, patients thought life-expectancy should not be discussed shortly after cancer diagnosis disclosure, as a certain time is needed to process the first shock. They had a stronger preference for receiving prognostic information in case of a poor prognosis. Prognostic information should also include information on the expected QoL. The pie chart was the most preferred chart for discussing survival rates.

conclusionsThe participants found it important to receive information on their life-expectancy. While most patients were enough reassured by qualitative prognostic information, some wanted to receive quantitative information like OncologIQs' estimates. A tailor-made approach is necessary to provide customized prognostic information. A clinical practice guideline was developed to support professionals in sharing prognostic information, aiming to improve shared decision making and patient-centered care.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultAgedCaregiversFemaleFocus GroupsHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansLife ExpectancyMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePatient PreferencePrognosisQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeCommunicationFocus groupsHead and neck cancerLife expectancyPatient-centered carePrognosisQualitative researchQuality of lifeShared decision makingSurvival

Identifiers

PMID32380962
PMCPMC7203788

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.