Would Oncologists Want Chemotherapy If They Had Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer?

March 1, 1998

Oncology. Vol. 12 No. 3

Results of a 1997 Survey

 

Would Oncologists Want Chemotherapy If They Had

Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer?

Thomas J. Smith, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Health Administration

Christopher E. Desch, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Health Administration

Matthew David, Research Assistant, Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of

Virginia

Mark R. Somerfield, PhD, Director of Health Services Research, American Society of Clinical Oncology

In 1985, a survey found that only about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have

consented to chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. In response to statements made at a

recent American Society of Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting questioning whether these

data are still valid, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a new survey of oncologists attending a 1997

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual meeting. The results of that survey are

summarized and analyzed.

Treatment recommendations for non-small-cell lung cancer[1-3] have changed markedly over the past

20 years, based on evidence that chemotherapy improves survival [4-8] and can palliate symptoms.[9]

The use of combined-modality chemotherapy and radiation therapy, with or without surgery, has also

substantially improved the 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival of patients with locally advanced disease,[4,5]

although at the expense of modestly increased toxicity.[10,11] There are indications, however, that not

all oncologists are keeping up with these improvements, and that knowledge does not always guide

practice.[12]

At a recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting convened to

review the ASCO guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, objections were raised

about the inclusion of prior data indicating that oncologists themselves would not take chemotherapy

for non-small-cell lung cancer even though they were willing to give it to their patients. In 1985,

MacKillop and colleagues found that of 118 Canadian doctors who treat lung cancer, only 16% would

want chemotherapy for symptomatic metastatic bone disease.[13] Lind and colleagues surveyed

teaching oncologists in Boston in 1987 and found that 27% would probably or definitely take

chemotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, but 76% would take radiation therapy.[14]

At the ASCO Board of Directors meeting, the proposal was made that current chemotherapy is so

much less toxic and the outcomes are so much better that oncologists would now uniformly take

chemotherapy if they were facing the disease. Dr. Smith and colleagues surveyed a convenience

sample of oncologists attending the 1997 National Comprehensive Center Network (NCCN) annual

conference to see whether attitudes toward receiving chemotherapy had, indeed, changed.

Materials and Methods

Literature spanning the period 1980 to 1997 was reviewed, as was evidence contained in the ASCO

Send as email Print this page

delicious Digg

Technorati reddit

Yahoo Google

Don’t miss the 10th edition of Cancer

Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach.

Brought to you by the publishers of the journal

Oncology. Read more>>

Focal Points: Hormonal Treatment for Breast Cancer | Focus On Practice Management Systems |

Register

Article Tools

Cancer Management

Literature spanning the period 1980 to 1997 was reviewed, as was evidence contained in the ASCO

non-small-cell lung cancer guidelines.[1] A convenience sample was drawn from attendees at a

session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines held in March 1997. Participants were asked to respond

to the following scenario: “You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver

metastasis, and bone metastases. Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes

or no?” Age and professional status, such as medical oncologist/hematologist, nurse, and other, were

also factored into the analysis. Results were analyzed using Microsoft Access.

Results

Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The mean age was

46 years. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists. As this was a

convenience sample, the representativeness of these oncologists cannot be determined, but all were

in academic or community practice and presumably interested in clinical practice guidelines for

oncology.

Results are shown in Table 1. Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take

chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other”

category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that

they would take chemotherapy.

Discussion

Given this clinical scenario of well-defined amounts of symptomatic disease and good performance

status, the ASCO guidelines[1] and Ontario guidelines[2] would recommend that chemotherapy can

improve survival and should at least be considered. The results of the present survey suggest that

there has been an increase in those willing to take chemotherapy.

In the MacKillop et al study,[13] only 17% of medical oncologists said that they would take

chemotherapy for painful bone metastases and another 17% said that they would undergo

radiotherapy to the spine, in addition to chemotherapy, for a total of 34%. Our results show that 64.5%

would now take chemotherapy—indicating nearly a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those now willing to

have chemotherapy plus radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take

chemotherapy alone. The Lind et al study did not include a comparable case.[14]

Conclusions

Three conclusions can be drawn from these data with reasonable certainty. First, the number of

medical oncologists who would choose chemotherapy has at least doubled and may have quadrupled.

This suggests that these informed consumers have recognized the enhanced clinical benefit and

reduced clinical toxicity of chemotherapy today and are making choices consistent with national clinical

practice guidelines.

The current finding runs counter to data accumulated from 1985 to 1990 at the Massey Cancer Center,

indicating that only a small minority (19% of Virginia non-small-cell lung cancer patients) were actually

receiving chemotherapy.[unpublished data, B. E. Hillner et al, 1998] Therefore, an analysis of current

practice patterns, before and after the release of the ASCO guidelines, would be helpful to see whether

the benefit of chemotherapy is being accepted in the community.

Second, even with modern chemotherapy that is modestly more effective and supportive care that is

clearly more effective, about one-third of medical oncologists and oncology nurses would still not take

chemotherapy. Their willingness to forego the small but palpable survival benefit indicates that these

“informed consumers” balance the trade-off between survival and toxicity in a way that indicates that

the choice is not clear-cut. What this may suggest is that a full discussion of the benefits and toxicities

associated with chemotherapy is still critically important for patients.

Data further indicate that patients facing certain death are willing to accept substantial toxicity for even

a slight chance of improved survival—far more than their well physicians and nurses.[15] Also, patients

and families may be more willing to undergo treatment that has known side effects, and to risk

treatment with unknown side effects and an unknown small chance of benefit. In the case of glioma

patients, Davies et al found that many remained unaware of the poor prognosis and terminal nature of

their disease. Yet, although 40% did not achieve stability of function, most would still choose radiation

their disease. Yet, although 40% did not achieve stability of function, most would still choose radiation

despite the possibility of adverse effects that include cognitive deficits.[16,17]

As a part of the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of

Treatments (SUPPORT)[18] Tsevat and colleagues found that some severely ill dying patients valued

their health states as much as they valued being well, and that their surrogates consistently

undervalued the utility of their life.[19] These differing views on the value of life at the end of life

provide strong evidence that we should use caution in applying our own judgments.

Alternatively, a third possibility for the present findings is that knowledge of some medical oncologists

still lags behind the published findings. There is good evidence that new knowledge is hard to acquire,

may take years to change attitudes, and does not always lead to a change in practice anyway.[12]

Hopefully, more discussion of these issues, as well as highly publicized well-designed clinical practice

guidelines, can help change this situation.

1. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of unresectable non-small-cell

lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:2996-3018, 1997.

2. Evans WK, Newman T, Graham I, et al: Lung cancer practice guidelines: Lessons learned and issues addressed by

the Ontario Lung Cancer Disease Site Group. J Clin Oncol 15:3049-3059, 1997.

3. Ginsberg RJ, Vokes EE, Raben A: Non-small cell lung cancer, in Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology, pp 858-

911. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1997.

4. Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group: Chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomized clinical trials. Br Med J 311:899-909, 1995.

5. Pritchard RS, Anthony SP: Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in the treatment of

locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Intern Med 125:723-729, 1996.

6. Grilli R, Oxman AD, Julian JA: Chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: How much benefit is

enough? J Clin Oncol 11:1866-1872, 1993.

7. McVie JC: Non-small-cell lung cancer: Meta-analysis of efficacy of chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 23:12-14, 1996.

8. Souquet PJ, Chauvin F, Boissel JP, et al: Polychemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A metaanalysis.

Lancet 342:19-21, 1993.

9. Adelstein DJ: Palliative chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 22:35-39, 1995.

10. Brundage MD, Groome PA, Feldman-Stewart D, et al: Decision analysis in locally advanced non-small-cell lung

cancer: Is it useful? J Clin Oncol 15(3):873-883, 1997.

11. Smith TJ, Hillner BE, Mitchell RB: Decision analysis in non-small-cell lung cancer: Not back to the drawing modeling

board, back to the bedside. J Clin Oncol 15:870-872, 1997.

12. Raby B, Mackilop WJ: Does knowledge guide practice? Another look at the management of non-small-cell lung

cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1904-1911, 1995.

13. Mackillop WJ, O’Sullivan B, Ward GK: Non-small-cell lung cancer: How oncologists want to be treated. Int J Radiat

Oncol Biol Phys 13:929-934, 1987.

14. Lind SE, DelVecchio MJ, Minkovitz CS, et al: Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer

therapies. Br J Cancer 64:391-395, 1991.

15. Slevin ML, Stubbs L, Plant HJ, et al: Attitudes to chemotherapy: Comparing views of patients with cancer with those

of doctors, nurses, and general public. Br Med J 300:1458-1460, 1990.

16. Davies E, Clarke C, Hopkins A: Malignant cerebral glioma. I: Survival, disability, and morbidity after radiotherapy. Br

Med J 313:1507-1512, 1996.

17. Davies E, Clarke C, Hopkins A: Malignant cerebral glioma. II: Perspectives of patients and relatives on the value of

radiotherapy. Br Med J 313:1512-1516, 1996.

18. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators: A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients: The

study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA 274:1591-

1598, 1995.

19. Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green ML, et al: Health values of the seriously ill. Ann Intern Med 122:514-520, 1994.

Post Comment