Search

Background: In caring for patients with advanced cancer, accurate estimation of survival is important for clinical decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of 2-year survival probabilities estimated by oncologists, patients, and caregivers and to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with prognostic accuracy.Methods: This was a secondary observational analysis of data obtained from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Participants included 38 oncologists, 263 patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer, and 193 of their caregivers from clinics in Sacramento and Western New York. Discrimination within each group (oncologists, patients, caregivers) was evaluated using the C statistic, whereas calibration was assessed by comparing observed to predicted 2-year mortality using the chi-square statistic.Results: The median survival from study entry was 18 months, and 41.8% of patients survived for 2 years. C statistics for oncologists, patients, and caregivers were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86), 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.68), and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78), respectively; oncologists' predictions were better than the predictions of both patients (P = .001) and caregivers (P = .03). Oncologists also had superior calibration: their predictions of 2-year survival were similar to actual survival (P = .17), whereas patients' (P = .0001) and caregivers' (P = .003) predictions diverged significantly from actual survival. Although most oncologists' predictions were classified as realistic (62.0%), approximately one-half of patients' and caregivers' predictions (50.0% and 46.0%, respectively) were unduly optimistic. Among patients, nonwhite race and higher levels of social well-being predicted undue optimism (P < .05).Conclusions: Compared with oncologists, patients and caregivers displayed inferior prognostic discrimination, and their predictions were poorly calibrated, primarily because of overoptimism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender and personality may individually impact end-of-life care. Men often receive more aggressive treatments than women near death, and personality – particularly openness – may be associated with increased care utilization when it diverges from traditional treatment norms. However, research has not examined the interaction of these variables in a dyadic context. This study examined the dyadic effects of patient gender and caregiver personality on end-of-life care. Using data from the VOICE randomized clinical trial, the present sample consisted of patient-caregiver dyads receiving outpatient care for advanced cancer in Sacramento and Western New York. Analyses assessed whether caregiver personality was associated with gender-based differences in patient chemotherapy or emergency department/inpatient visits in the 30 days before death. Logistic regression examined the interaction between caregivers' Big Five personality dimensions and patient gender while accounting for patient and caregiver demographic and health characteristics. Of a total of 134 patient-caregiver dyads, 19.4% (n = 26) of patients received chemotherapy and 47.8% (n = 64) had an emergency department/inpatient visit in the 30 days before death. Results demonstrated a significant interaction between caregiver openness and patient gender on receipt of chemotherapy (odds ratio = 0.07, p = 0.006). When caregivers were less open, men were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death, whereas when caregivers were more open, women were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death. Results suggest caregiver personality characteristics, particularly openness, might disrupt gender-based treatment norms at end-of-life. Findings demonstrate that patient and caregiver factors can interact to explain patient healthcare utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]