Current status of accurate prognostic awareness in advanced/terminally ill cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis
No systematic meta-analysis is available on the prevalence of cancer patients’ accurate prognostic awareness and differences in accurate prognostic awareness by publication year, region, assessment method, and service received.Aim:
To examine the prevalence of advanced/terminal cancer patients’ accurate prognostic awareness and differences in accurate prognostic awareness by publication year, region, assessment method, and service received.Design:
Systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods:
MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were systematically searched on accurate prognostic awareness in adult patients with advanced/terminal cancer (1990–2014). Pooled prevalences were calculated for accurate prognostic awareness by a random-effects model. Differences in weighted estimates of accurate prognostic awareness were compared by meta-regression.Results:
In total, 34 articles were retrieved for systematic review and meta-analysis. At best, only about half of advanced/terminal cancer patients accurately understood their prognosis (49.1%; 95% confidence interval: 42.7%–55.5%; range: 5.4%–85.7%). Accurate prognostic awareness was independent of service received and publication year, but highest in Australia, followed by East Asia, North America, and southern Europe and the United Kingdom (67.7%, 60.7%, 52.8%, and 36.0%, respectively; p = 0.019). Accurate prognostic awareness was higher by clinician assessment than by patient report (63.2% vs 44.5%, p < 0.001).Conclusion:
Less than half of advanced/terminal cancer patients accurately understood their prognosis, with significant variations by region and assessment method. Healthcare professionals should thoroughly assess advanced/terminal cancer patients’ preferences for prognostic information and engage them in prognostic discussion early in the cancer trajectory, thus facilitating their accurate prognostic awareness and the quality of end-of-life care decision-making.