Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Clinical Oncology/Epidemiology
  • Published:

Clinical Oncology/Epidemiology

Palliation and life quality in lung cancer; how good are clinicians at judging treatment outcome?

Abstract

A recent trial by the MRC Lung Cancer Working Party used physician assessments to compare two palliative schedules of radiotherapy in lung cancer. A prospective study has been undertaken on a subset of these trial patients to see how physician assessments of symptomatic relief and general condition correlate with patient perception of therapeutic response. In 40 patients followed up monthly from presentation until close to death, good agreement was found between doctors and patients on change in specific physical symptoms and overall physical condition. Doctors were poor judges of life quality at presentation but appeared able to identify relative improvement or deterioration in overall quality of life. In conclusion, physician assessments may constitute valid end-points for radiotherapy trials comparing palliative schedules in lung cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Regan, J., Yarnold, J., Jones, P. et al. Palliation and life quality in lung cancer; how good are clinicians at judging treatment outcome?. Br J Cancer 64, 396–400 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1991.316

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1991.316

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links