Background: To evaluate the claim that oncologists overestimate expected survival time (EST) in advanced cancer.
Methods: We pooled 7 prospective studies in which observed survival time (OST) was compared with EST (median survival in a group of similar patients estimated at baseline by the treating oncologist). We hypothesized that EST would be well calibrated (approximately 50% of EST longer than OST) and imprecise (<30% of EST within 0.67 to 1.33 of OST), and that multiples of EST would provide well-calibrated scenarios for survival time: worst-case (approximately 10% of OST <1/4 of EST), typical (approximately 50% of OST within half to double EST), and best-case (approximately 10% of OST >3 times EST). Associations between baseline characteristics and calibration of EST were assessed.
Results: Characteristics of 1,211 patients: median age 66 years, male 61%, primary site lung (40%) and upper gastrointestinal (16%). The median OST was 8 months, and EST was 9 months. Oncologists' estimates of EST were well calibrated (50% longer than OST) and imprecise (28% within 0.67 to 1.33 of OST). Scenarios for survival time based on simple multiples of EST were well calibrated: 8% of patients had an OST less than 1/4 their EST (worst-case), 56% had an OST within half to double their EST (typical), and 11% had an OST greater than 3 times their EST (best-case). Calibration was independent of age, sex, and cancer type.
Conclusions: Oncologists were no more likely to overestimate survival time than to underestimate it. Simple multiples of EST provide well-calibrated estimates of worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10697783 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkad094 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!