CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞疗法在非肿瘤性疾病中的应用
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in non-oncological diseases.
CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞在血液系统恶性肿瘤中的应用推动了这种免疫治疗形式的显著进展。
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:Communication About Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell (CAR-T) Therapy.
Communication About Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell (CAR-T) Therapy.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
CAR-T 细胞疗法已经彻底改变了血液系统恶性肿瘤患者的治疗,但治疗可能伴随潜在危及生命的毒性。目前,尚无研究探讨肿瘤科医生如何与患者沟通CAR-T 疗法,或患者及其照护者在同意接受CAR-T 疗法之前希望了解哪些信息。
本研究旨在描述肿瘤科医生与患者及照护者关于CAR-T 疗法风险和获益的沟通内容,并探讨患者及其照护者对CAR-T 疗法的信息偏好。
我们对马萨诸塞州总医院20名因CAR-T 疗法转诊的血液系统恶性肿瘤患者和10名照护者进行了一项多方法研究。我们录音记录了与肿瘤科医生为审查并签署CAR-T 疗法知情同意而进行的首次门诊就诊。随后,我们调查了患者和照护者在签署同意后仍存在的信息缺口。然后,我们在同意就诊后、CAR-T 疗法治疗后1个月和3个月,访谈了患者和照护者对肿瘤科医生沟通的看法和信息偏好。定性数据分析采用框架法进行。关于CAR-T 治疗沟通,确定了六大主题:(1) 肿瘤科医生围绕CAR-T 治疗构建了力量与创新的叙事,(2) 肿瘤科医生对CAR-T 治疗设定了明确的预期,(3) 肿瘤科医生优先讨论阳性治疗结局,较少涉及治疗失败或不确定性,(4) 肿瘤科医生在讨论CAR-T 治疗风险时,同时给予风险缓解策略的保证,(5) 肿瘤科医生在整个知情同意访视中开展共情沟通,(6) 患者和照护者在关于CAR-T 治疗沟通的偏好上存在差异,但总体上倾向于在知情同意访视中进行积极话语,以及(7) 完成CAR-T 治疗的患者及其照护者报告在治疗期间和治疗后存在显著的知识缺口。
总体而言,患者和照护者感到对CAR-T 治疗了解充分,但仍识别出在预先护理计划、治疗失败和治疗毒性方面的沟通缺口。患者、照护者与肿瘤科医生之间围绕CAR-T 治疗以积极话语为主,使患者和照护者对阴性结局存在显著的知识缺口。需要进一步研究以帮助肿瘤科医生沟通治疗不确定性,并帮助患者及其照护者为CAR-T 治疗的阴性结局做好准备。
Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies, yet treatment may coincide with the potential for life-threatening toxicities. Currently, no studies have investigated how oncologists communicate with patients about CAR-T therapy or what patients and their caregivers want to know prior to consenting for CAR-T therapy.
This study characterizes the content of oncologist communication with patients and caregivers about the risks and benefits of CAR-T therapy and explore the information preferences of patients and their caregivers about CAR-T therapy.
We conducted a multimethod study of 20 patients with hematologic malignancies referred for CAR-T therapy at the Massachusetts General Hospital and 10 caregivers.
We audio recorded the initial outpatient visit with the oncologist to review and sign consent for CAR-T therapy.
We subsequently surveyed patients and caregivers about information gaps that remained after consent.
We then interviewed patients and caregiver about their perceptions of oncologist communication and information preferences after the consent visit, 1 month, and 3 months post-CAR-T therapy treatment. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using the framework approach.
Six major themes regarding communication about CAR-T therapy were identified: (1) oncologists create a narrative of power and innovation about CAR-T therapy, (2) oncologists set clear expectations regarding CAR-T therapy, (3) oncologists preferentially discuss positive treatment outcomes and less frequently address treatment failures or uncertainties, (4) oncologists couple their discussion about risks of CAR-T therapy with assurances about risk mitigation strategies, (5) oncologists engage in empathetic communication throughout the consent visit, (6) patients and caregivers vary in their preferences regarding communication about CAR-T therapy but largely favor a positive discourse during the consent visit and (7) patients who completed CAR-T therapy and their caregivers report significant knowledge gaps during and after treatment.
Overall, patients and caregivers felt well informed about CAR T-therapy yet identified communication gaps regarding, advanced care planning, treatment failure and treatment toxicities. A predominantly positive discourse between patients, caregivers, and oncologists around CAR-T therapy leaves patients and caregivers with significant knowledge gaps about negative outcomes.
Further research is needed to help oncologists communicate about treatment uncertainties and help patients and their caregivers prepare for negative outcomes of CAR-T therapy.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。