Prognostication in oncology

Is accurate routine cancer prognostication psychologically harmful? 5-year outcomes of life expectancy prognostication in uveal melanoma survivors

Purpose

Prognostication in cancer is growing in importance as increasingly accurate tools are developed. Prognostic accuracy intensifies ethical concerns that a poor prognosis could be psychologically harmful to survivors. Uveal melanoma (UM) prognostication allows survivors to be reliably told that life expectancy is either normal (good prognosis) or severely curtailed because of metastatic disease (poor prognosis). Treatment cannot change life expectancy. To identify whether prognosis is associated with psychological harm, we compared harm in UM survivors with good and poor prognoses and those who declined testing and compared these outcomes to general population norms.

Methods

Non-randomized 5-year study of a consecutive series of 708 UM survivors (51.6% male, mean age 69.03, SD=12.12) with observations at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. We operationalized psychological harm as anxiety and depression symptoms, worry about cancer recurrence (WREC) and poor quality of life (QoL).

Results

Compared to other groups, survivors with poor prognoses showed initially elevated anxiety and depression and consistently elevated worry about local or distant recurrence over 5 years. Good prognoses were not associated with outcomes. Generally, no prognostic groups reported anxiety, depression and WREC or QoL scores that exceeded general population norms.

Conclusions

Using a large sample, we found that harm accruing from a poor prognosis was statistically significant over 5 years, but did not exceed general non-cancer population norms.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Survivors desire prognostic information. At a population level, we do not believe that our findings show sufficiently strong links between prognostication outcome and psychological harm to deny patients the option of knowing their prognosis. Nonetheless, it is important that patients are informed of potential adverse psychological consequences of a poor prognosis.

Adipose tissue density on CT as a prognostic factor in patients with cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Predicting oncologic outcomes is essential for optimizing the treatment for patients with cancer. This review examines the feasibility of using Computed Tomography (CT) images of fat density as a prognostic factor in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane up to March 2020. All studies that mentioned using subcutaneous or visceral adipose tissue (SAT and VAT, respectively) CT characteristics as a prognostic factor for patients with cancer were included. The primary endpoints were any disease-related outcomes in patients with cancer.

RESULTS

After screening 1043 studies, ten studies reporting a total of 23 - ten for SAT and thirteen for VAT - comparisons on survival, tumor recurrence and postsurgical infection were included. All ten studies included different types of malignancy: six localized, two metastatic disease, and two both. Five different anatomic landmarks were used to uniformly measure fat density on CT: lumbar (L)4 (n = 4), L3 (n = 2), L4-L5 intervertebral space (n = 2), L5-S1 intervertebral space (n = 1), and the abdomen (n = 1). Overall, six of ten SAT comparisons (60%) and six of thirteen VAT comparisons (46%) reported a significant (p < .05) association of increased SAT or VAT density with an adverse outcome. All remaining nonsignificant comparisons, except one, deviated in the same direction of being predictive for adverse outcomes but failed to reach significance. The median hazard ratio (HR) for the nine SAT and thirteen VAT associations where HRs were given were 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.97) and 1.90 (95% CI 1.12-2.74), respectively. The binomial sign test and Fisher's method both reported a significant association between both SAT and VAT and adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review may support the feasibility of using SAT or VAT on CT as a prognostic tool for patients with cancer in predicting adverse outcomes such as survival and tumor recurrence. Future research should standardize radiologic protocol in prospective homogeneous series of patients on each cancer diagnosis group in order to establish accurate parameters to help physicians use CT scan defined characteristics in clinical practice.