Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit.

Autor:	Gupta A; Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States., Brundage MD; Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L3N6, Canada., Galica J; Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L3N6, Canada., Karim S; Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N4N2, Canada., Koven R; Patient Advocate on behalf of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L3N6, Canada., Ng TL; Division of Medical Oncology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa ON K1H8L6, Canada., O'Donnell J; Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L3N6, Canada., tenHove J; Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L3N6, Canada., Robinson A; Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON K7L2V7, Canada., Booth CM; Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Sinclair Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L3N6, Canada.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The oncologist [Oncologist] 2024 Nov 04; Vol. 29 (11), pp. 978-985.
DOI:	10.1093/oncolo/oyae187
Abstrakt:	Background: Effective techniques for eliciting patients' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients' considerations of the time burdens of care ("time toxicity") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens. Results: The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions. Conclusions: Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic. (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu