Virtual Library

 x 
My Library Virtual Library FAQ

Start Your Search

C. Brown



Author of

  • +

    P1.12 - Poster Session 1 - NSCLC Early Stage (ID 203)

    • Event: WCLC 2013
    • Type: Poster Session
    • Track: Medical Oncology
    • Presentations: 2
    • +

      P1.12-010 - Lung cancer clinicians' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): what makes it worthwhile? (ID 1498)

      09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): C. Brown

      • Abstract

      Background
      Clinicians play an important role helping patients make decisions about ACT, but their views about trade-offs between the benefits and harms of ACT may differ from those of their patients. We sought to determine the minimum survival benefits that lung cancer clinicians judged sufficient to make ACT in NSCLC worthwhile, the factors associated with these judgements, and comparisons with the preferences of their patients.

      Methods
      82 lung cancer clinicians (medical oncologists & thoracic surgeons) completed a self-administered questionnaire. The time trade-off method was used to determine the minimum survival benefits judged sufficient to make ACT worthwhile in 4 hypothetical scenarios. Baseline survival times were 3 years and 5 years and baseline survival rates (at 5 years) were 50% and 65%. Patients’ preferences were those of 122 patients considering ACT for NSCLC elicited in a related study using similar methods. Differences between groups were assessed by 2-sample non-parametric tests. Determinants of preferences were assessed by univariable comparison after normal score transformation. Variance was assessed with the Ansari-Bradley rank test.

      Results
      Most clinicians were male (75%) with a median age of 43 years (range 28-65), had 5 or more years of professional experience (69%), were married (92%), and had dependent children (72%). More were medical oncologists (63%) than thoracic surgeons (31%). The median benefit judged sufficient (by 50% of clinicians) was an extra 9 months (IQR 6-12 months) beyond survival times of both 3 years and 5 years, and an extra 5% (IQR 5-10%) beyond 5-year survival rates of both 50% and 65%. Medical oncologists, compared with thoracic surgeons, judged smaller benefits sufficient to make ACT worthwhile (median benefit 8 months v 12 months, p=0.03). Clinicians’ preferences, compared with patients’ preferences, had the same median benefit (9 months survival time, 5% survival rate) but varied over a smaller range (IQR, 6-12 months v 1-12 months, p<0.001; 5%-10% v 0.1-10% p<0.001).

      Conclusion
      Lung cancer clinicians judged moderate survival benefits sufficient to make ACT in NSCLC worthwhile, but preferences differed according to specialty. Clinicians’ preferences were similar to patients’ preferences, but varied less. Lung cancer clinicians should be mindful of their own preferences and how they may influence discussions and decisions about ACT in NSCLC.

    • +

      P1.12-011 - Patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in early non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): What makes it worthwhile? (ID 1773)

      09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): C. Brown

      • Abstract

      Background
      ACT for NSCLC improves overall survival, but the benefits are modest and must be weighed against the harms and inconvenience of the treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the survival benefits judged necessary to make ACT worthwhile for patients with resected early NSCLC, and the factors associated with their judgments.

      Methods
      122 patients considering ACT completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline (before ACT, if they were having it) and 6 months later (after ACT, if they had it). The time trade-off method was used to determine the minimum survival benefits judged sufficient to make ACT worthwhile in 4 hypothetical scenarios. Baseline survival times were 3 and 5 years and baseline survival rates (at 5 years) were 50% and 65%. All tests were 2-sided and non-parametric. Determinants of preferences were assessed by (rank test) comparison of preferences in groups defined by each factor.

      Results
      Most patients were male (57%) with a median age of 63 years (range, 43-79 years), married (72%) and previous smokers (81%). The majority had had a lobectomy (84%), adenocarcinoma histology (60%), and half had stage II disease (50%). 106 patients decided to have ACT (87%), 16 declined ACT (13%); female sex and age over 65 years were associated with declining. ACT was most commonly 4 cycles (68%) of cisplatin/ vinorelbine (73%). At baseline, the median benefit judged sufficient (by 50% of patients) was 9 months (IQR 1-12 months) beyond life expectancies of 3 years and 5 years, and 5% (IQR 0.1-10%) beyond 5-year survival rates of 50% and 65%. Preferences varied across the entire range of possible benefits (from 0 days and 0% to an extra 15 years and 50%). At baseline, deciding to have ACT (p=0.01) was the only factor that predicted judging smaller benefits sufficient to make ACT worthwhile. At 6 months (n=91), the median benefits judged sufficient were the same as at baseline (9 months & 5%), but preferences varied over a greater range (IQR’s 0-18 months & 0-15%). At 6 months, deciding to have ACT (p=0.02) and better physical (p=0.02), emotional (p=0.004), and overall well-being (p=0.004) during adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with judging smaller benefits sufficient to make ACT worthwhile. Fatigue, nausea, sleeplessness and reduced appetite were the side effects of ACT that patients were most concerned about experiencing (at baseline) and were rated the most troublesome (at 6 months).

      Conclusion
      Most patients judged moderate survival benefits sufficient to make ACT worthwhile, but preferences varied widely and were not predicted by baseline characteristics. Preferences were stable over time. Patients with NSCLC judged larger benefits necessary for ACT than patients with breast and colon cancer in our previous studies. Clinicians should elicit the preferences of individual patients when discussing and making decisions about ACT.

  • +

    P2.10 - Poster Session 2 - Chemotherapy (ID 207)

    • Event: WCLC 2013
    • Type: Poster Session
    • Track: Medical Oncology
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      P2.10-040 - Prognostic significance, accuracy and usefulness of oncologists' estimates of survival time for patients starting first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ANSCLC) (ID 2560)

      09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): C. Brown

      • Abstract

      Background
      Oncologists are frequently required to provide estimates of survival time for their patients with advanced cancer. The aims of this study were to determine the accuracy and prognostic significance of oncologists’ estimates of survival time above and beyond conventional prognostic factors.

      Methods
      Medical oncologists from 26 sites in Australia and New Zealand recorded the “expected survival time in months” for individual patients with ANSCLC prior to randomisation in a trial of first-line chemotherapy with a platinum-based doublet. Blood samples, demographics, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected at baseline along with the oncologist’s rating of each patient using Spitzer’s Quality of Life Index (SQLI). Based on previous studies, we deemed estimates within 0.75-1.33 times observed survival as precise, and expected 50% of patients to live longer (or shorter) than their oncologist’s estimate, 50% to live from half to double their oncologist’s estimate (typical scenario); 5-10% to live ≤¼ of their estimate (worst-case scenario); and, 5-10% to live ≥3 times their estimate (best-case scenario). Associations between estimated and observed survival times in months were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression before and after adjustment for baseline prognostic factors including age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), cancer extent, histology, co-morbidities, laboratory results and SQLI.

      Results
      Estimates of survival were available for 244 (98%) of the first 250 patients randomised. Patient characteristics were: median age 64 years; female 40%; adenocarcinoma 64%; ECOG PS 0-1 92%; and distant metastases 71%. After a median follow-up of 21 months there were 172 deaths (69%). The median (interquartile range, IQR) for observed survival was 10 months (5-20) and for estimated survival was 11 months (9-12). Oncologists’ estimates were imprecise (22% from 0.75-1.33 times observed) but well calibrated (47% of patients lived shorter than expected and 53% lived longer than expected). The proportions of patients with observed survival times falling within ranges bounded by simple multiples of their estimated survival times corresponded closely with our a-priori hypotheses: 10% lived ≤1/4 of their estimated survival time, 53% lived from half to double their estimated survival time, and 13% lived ≥3 times their estimated survival time. The oncologist’s estimate of survival time at baseline was the strongest predictor of observed survival in both univariable analysis (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.95, p<0.001) and multivariable analysis (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.95, p<0.001) accounting for all other independently significant predictors, namely: estimated neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio >5 (HR 3.15, 95% CI 1.76-5.64, p<0.001); haemoglobin <120g/L (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.3-2.9, p=0.001) and total white cell count >11x10[9]/L (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05-2.27, p=0.03).

      Conclusion
      Oncologists' estimates of survival time were independently associated with observed survival time and provided a reasonable basis for estimating worst-case, typical and best-case scenarios for survival. Oncologists’ estimates provide useful additional prognostic information, above and beyond that provided by established prognostic factors.