Associazione Nazionale Tumori (ANT), Istituto di Ricerca, Via Curiel 7, 40134 Bologna, Italy (E-mail: tanneberger@antnet.it)
In the April 2001 issue of Annals of Oncology, Marco Maltoni and Dino Amadori reviewed the situation in palliative medicine and medical oncology and presented statements on palliative and terminal care of the British National Council for Hospice and Palliative Care Services [1]. Terminal care was defined as "the management of patients during the last few days or weeks or even months of life." This vague definition makes visible the difficulties we have in estimating the duration of life for patients with end-of-life cancer. These difficulties can become an ethical dilemma when a physician, on referring a patient to a hospice programme, is obliged to predict accurately the patients prognosis. Moreover, these difficulties can create uncertainty that affect day-to-day patient management in palliative care programmes including physician concern regarding the use of high-dose morphine, enteral or nutritional support and/or providing parenteral fluids during the terminal phase of illness. Certainly guidelines are useful, such as the recently published French standards, options and recommendations for nutritional support in palliative or terminal care of adult patients with progressive cancer. However, the recommendation to renounce artificial nutrition when life expectancy is below 3 months remains difficult to realize, since assessment of life expectancy can be erroneous [2].
Available data concerning the accuracy of the clinical estimation of a patients life expectancy and the associated ethical dilemmas are scarce. Christakis et al. [3] reported on 468 patients seen by 343 randomly selected doctors (that is, less than two patients per doctor). The doctors were not trained in end-of-life care: fifty-two per cent were specialized in internal medicine and only a minority in oncology (17%) or geriatrics (8%). Only 20% of predictions were accurate, 63% were overly optimistic and 17% overly pessimistic. Even Vigan et al. [4] noted a tendency to overestimate survival. Twenty-five per cent of 225 patients in this study had their survival correctly predicted by the treating oncologist. Twenty-three per cent had their survival underestimated and 52% had their life expectancy overestimated. In this study the qualifications of the treating oncologists were not recorded. Similar estimations, consistent with the results given above, were found in 200 patients assessed in parallel by oncologists (25.7%), GPs (21.7%) and nurses (21.5%) in a Spanish study [5].
As an alternative, various prognostic indices, scales and score models were proposed. These are certainly applicable for patients treated in specialized institutions. Nevertheless, for the majority of patients, subjective prognostic predictions of the care-giving staff will remain daily practice. In order to evaluate whether errors in the prognoses of terminally ill patients decrease as the qualifications of the treating doctor increase, we initiated in 1999 a study on the accuracy of clinical estimation of duration of life for patients with end-of-life cancer. In contrast to the studies mentioned above, the participating doctors had a high degree of experience in end-of-life care.
Altogether eight doctors participated in the study completing a questionnaire at the first consultation. In the questionnaire they had to classify patients into one of five survival categories (02, 24, 49, 917 or >17 weeks) and to indicate one or more of 13 easily assessable criteria for decision making. Doctors had a median duration of medical practice of 14 years and were all board certified. Half were specialized in oncology and all were working full-time in home care for end-of-life cancer patients for a medium duration of 9.5 years. Two hundred and sixty-nine patients (median age 74 years; mean age 72 years, range 3496 years) were included in the study. Median survival of patients was 9.6 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI) 810.7 weeks]. Main groups by tumor site were gastrointestinal (90 patients), urogenital (61 patients), lung (50 patients) and breast (22 patients). Table 1 shows that in 33% of patients the prediction was correct. Thirty-nine per cent survived less than estimated and 28% survived longer. The prognostic criteria, mainly used by the treating doctor, were localization of tumor (59%), localization of the metastasis (58%), anorexia (47%), tumor dimension (42%) and severe weakness (45%). Other criteria, such as fever (3%), stomatitis (7%) or disorientation (9%), were used much less or only site specifically (shortness of breath 26% in lung pathology).
|
We conclude the following from this study:
S. Tanneberger, I. Malavasi, P. Mariano, F. Pannuti & E. Strocchi
Associazione Nazionale Tumori (ANT), Istituto di Ricerca, Via Curiel 7, 40134 Bologna, Italy (E-mail: tanneberger@antnet.it)
References
1. Maltoni M, Amadori D. Palliative medicine and medical oncology. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 443451.[Abstract]
2. Bachmann P, Marti-Massoud C, Blanc-Vincen MP et al. Standards, options and recommendations: nutritional support in palliative or terminal care of adult patients with progressive cancer. Bull Cancer 2001; 88: 9851006.[ISI][Medline]
3. Christakis NA, Lamont EB. Extent and determinants of error in doctors prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. Br Med J 2000; 320: 469472.
4. Vigan A, Dorgan M, Bruera E et al. The relative accuracy of the clinical estimation of the duration of life for patients with end of life cancer. Cancer 1999; 86: 170176.[ISI][Medline]
5. Llobera J, Esteva M, Rifa J et al. Terminal cancer. Duration and prediction of survival time. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36: 20362043.[ISI][Medline]