Back to Authors

Ellis, L. M.

Mayo Clinic

Fox Chase Cancer Center

Citations 3

Adjuvant therapy report card: Patients with stage II/III colon cancer grade their oncologists
Love, Neil, Ziel, Kathryn, Elder, Melanie, Ellis, L. M., Grothey, Axel, Meropol, Neal J. , Paley, Douglas, Ravdin, Peter M., Bylund, Carma L. , Saltz, Leonard B.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | August 25, 2020 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 4045-4045

10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.4045 Get It

4045 Background: Our group previously reported on patient (Pt) recollections of adjuvant therapy (AT) for colon cancer and their grading of medical oncologists (MO) regarding various aspects of care. Overall, MO were highly rated, but grades for presenting information were lower, and patient expectations about side effects often did not match experiences. To further examine the Pt experience with AT, a prospective study was launched in Feb 2008. Methods: Pts with Stage II/III colon cancer about to begin or within 4 months of starting AT were recruited for a 4-part survey regarding sources and quality of treatment information and their experiences with AT. The survey also asked Pts to provide a grade (A-F) for their MO in 8 areas. Results: 85 Pts (71% female, 79% Stage III, median age 52 years) completed Part 1 of the survey. 93% stated that their MO explained the risks and benefits of AT. Of those, 92% stated they understood this information completely or almost completely (3 or 4 on a 0–4 scale) and 79% received numerical estimates of recurrence risk with and without treatment. When questioned about the potential absolute benefit of AT, 26% of Pts who received numerical estimates “had no idea” and other answers ranged from 3% to 100% for recurrence risk. Pt grade point averages for their MO ranged from 3.0 to 3.6 ( Table 1 ). As in the prior survey, expectations about side effects frequently did not accurately reflect experiences. For example, 54% of Pts expected alopecia but only 5% experienced it to a significant degree. 84% of Pts also sought information from websites, and 87% rated this as helpful and valuable (3 or 4 on a 0–4 scale). Conclusions: Pts are generally satisfied with their MO but less so with the presentation of treatment-related information and thus frequently consult additional resources, such as cancer information websites. This suggests an opportunity for improved information delivery within oncology offices and via the Internet. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]
How well do we communicate with patients concerning adjuvant systemic therapy? A survey of 150 colorectal cancer survivors
Love, Nora, Meropol, Neal J. , Curley, S., Ellis, L. M., Grothey, Axel, Lenz, Heinz‐Josef , Elder, Melanie, Bylund, Carma L. , Marshall, John L , Saltz, Leonard B.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 6, 2020 | Volume: 25 | Issue: 18_suppl | Pages: 4020-4020

10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.4020 Get It

4020 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) presents a substantial patient education challenge to medical oncologists (MOs). Findings from our 2005 pilot survey suggest that a significant fraction of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are willing to undergo AC for modest treatment benefits, but their understanding of risks and benefits may be suboptimal. This project attempted to validate these findings by surveying patients with CRC (Pts) who previously received AC. Methods: 150 Pts who received AC for CRC in the last 5 years were recruited to listen to an audio program on AC featuring interviews with clinical investigators (CIs) and Pts who received AC. Based on this input, Pts were asked whether they would undergo the same AC again for varying absolute treatment benefits. A corresponding survey asked 24 CRC CIs and 150 MOs to predict how patients would respond. The survey also queried Pts about their expectations of and experiences with AC side effects. Results: About 1/3 of Pts would be treated again with AC for a 1% absolute reduction in recurrence risk (ARRR), and about 2/3 believed a 5% ARRR would justify treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between responses of males and females or between Pts receiving oxaliplatin (OX) and those receiving other regimens. ( Table 1 ) The corresponding estimates of CIs and MOs were lower. Additionally, AC side effects were different than expected: 57% and 66% of Pts experienced less GI toxicity and alopecia, respectively, while 38% and 46% of Pts receiving OX experienced greater cold intolerance and numbness. Conclusions: Many potential obstacles exist in communicating with Pts about AC including heterogeneity in Pts’ attitudes towards risk/benefit trade-offs and preconceptions about treatment side effects. The next step in this initiative will be to examine these issues prospectively by evaluating the impact of an audio/web education supplement on the decision-making process. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer (PCRC): A pilot project to determine interests in and understanding of patient education on clinical research
Love, Nora, Curley, S., Ellis, L. M., Lenz, Heinz‐Josef , Paley, Martin, Kaderman, R., Ziel, Kathryn, Paley, Douglas, Grothey, Axel

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 23, 2017 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 3635-3635

10.1200/jco.2005.23.16_suppl.3635 Get It