Cancer diagnosis disclosure from Portuguese physicians

OBJECTIVE: Doctor-patient communication in oncology, particularly concerning diagnostic disclosure, is a crucial factor related to the quality of the doctor-patient relationship and the psychological state of the patient. The aims of our study were to investigate physicians' opinions and practice with respect to disclosure of a cancer diagnosis and to explore potential related factors. METHOD: A self-report questionnaire developed for our study was responded to by 120 physicians from Coimbra University Hospital Centre and its primary healthcare units. RESULTS: Some 91.7% of physician respondents generally disclosed a diagnosis, and 94.2% were of the opinion that the patient knowing the truth about a diagnosis had a positive effect on the doctor-patient relationship. A need for training about communicating with oncology patients was reported by 85.8% of participants. The main factors determining what information to provide to patients were: (1) patient intellectual and cultural level, (2) patient desire to know the truth, and (3) the existence of family. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our results point to a paradigm shift in communication with cancer patients where disclosure of the diagnosis should be made part of general clinical practice. Nevertheless, physicians still experience difficulties in revealing cancer diagnoses to patients and often lack the skills to deal with a patient's emotional responses, which suggests that more attention needs to be focused on communication skills training programs.

Diagnostic value of surgical lung biopsy: comparison with clinical and radiological diagnosis

OBJECTIVE: To determine overall and disease-related accuracy of the clinical/imagiological evaluation for pulmonary infiltrates of unknown aetiology, compared with the pathological result of the surgical lung biopsy (SLB) and to evaluate the need for the latter in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the experiences of SLB in 366 consecutive patients during the past 5 years. The presumptive diagnosis was based on clinical, imagiological and non-invasive or minimally invasive diagnostic procedures and compared with the gold standard of histological diagnosis by SLB. We considered five major pathological groups: diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD), primitive neoplasms, metastases, infectious disease and other lesions. Patients with previous histological diagnosis were excluded. RESULTS: In 56.0% of patients (n=205) clinical evaluation reached a correct diagnosis, in 42.6% a new diagnosis was established (n=156) by the SLB, which was inconclusive in 1.4% (n=5). The pre-test probability for each disease was 85% for DPLD, 75% for infectious disease, 64% for primitive neoplasms and 60% for metastases. Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for the clinical/radiological diagnosis were 70%, 90%, 62% and 92%, respectively. For DPLD: 67%, 90%, 76% and 85%; primitive neoplasms: 47%, 90%, 46% and 90%; metastases: 99%, 79%, 60% and 99%; infectious disease 38%, 98%, 53% and 96%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high sensitivity and specificity of the clinical and imagiological diagnosis, the positive predictive value was low, particularly in the malignancy group. SLB should be performed in pulmonary infiltrates of unknown aetiology because the clinical/imagiological assessment missed and/or misdiagnosed an important number of patients.