Abstract 1569P
Background
QoL assessment has become standard in oncology clinical trials, while its management in routine practice remains subject to many questions. This study aimed to reach a consensus from physicians involved in lung cancer on the patients’ QoL management (assessment and discussion) in daily practice.
Methods
747 physicians involved in lung cancer (oncologists, pulmonologists, radiotherapists) were solicited to take part in a Delphi-method-based consensus approach. Based on 3 rounds of iterated queries, this explored 7 QoL management aspects (from specification to assessment ways). Consensus was obtained in the case of 70% responders’ agreement. A scientific committee composed of clinicians and a psycho-oncologist analysed results following each round.
Results
A representative panel of 60 physicians (13 oncologists, 43 pulmonologists, 4 radiotherapists) participated in at least one round (53 at round 1, 46 at round 2, 39 at round 3). Consensus elements were reached for 6 aspects. Consensus was obtained for a QoL management all along the patient journey. Three key time points were identified: “diagnosis”, “tumour evaluation showing progressive disease or start of a new treatment” and “palliative and end of life care”. A consensus was reached for a multidimensional QoL discussion with specificities at particular points such as spirituality in palliative care. QoL discussion must occur mainly during routine visits or hospitalisation. The need to involve patient’s relatives at all time points (except when discussing side effects) and for a relay by a multidisciplinary team beyond this discussion were consensually recognized. QoL assessment before the visit could be of interest, however its systematisation for all patients at all time points was not consensual. No consensus was reached on the type of tool (interview guide, questionnaire) needed to support the QoL assessment.
Conclusions
QoL was considered by French physicians as a part of routine clinical visits in thoracic oncology, and was deemed key in the patient-physician interaction. Further work should be conducted to harmonise how to best implement and use QoL assessment.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Bristol Myers Squibb.
Funding
Bristol Myers Squibb.
Disclosure
V. Westeel; M. Bourdon; A.B. Cortot; D. Debieuvre; A.C. Toffart; M. Acquadro; B. Arnould; J. Lambert: Advisory/Consultancy: Bristol Myers Squibb. F-E. Cotte; A-F. Gaudin; H. Lemasson: Honoraria (institution): Bristol Myers Squibb.