Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 503

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cancer Patient Preferences for Communication of Prognosis in the Metastatic Setting

Open access
Hagerty, Rebecca G., Butow, Phyllis N., Ellis, Peter A., Lobb, Elizabeth A., Pendlebury, Susan, Leighl, Natasha, Goldstein, David, Lo, Sing Kai, Tattersall, Martin H.N.·2004·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To identify preferences for and predictors of prognostic information among patients with incurable metastatic cancer. Patients and Methods: One hundred twenty-six metastatic cancer patients seeing 30 oncologists at 12 outpatient clinics in New South Wales, Australia, participated in the study. Patients were diagnosed with incurable metastatic disease within 6 weeks to 6 months of recruitment. Patients completed a survey eliciting their preferences for prognostic information, including type, quantity, mode, and timing of presentation; anxiety and depression levels; and information and involvement preferences. Results: More than 95% of patients wanted information about side effects, symptoms, and treatment options. The majority wanted to know longest survival time with treatment (85%), 5-year survival rates (80%), and average survival (81%). Words and numbers were preferred over pie charts or graphs. Fifty-nine percent (59%) wanted to discuss expected survival when first diagnosed with metastatic disease. Thirty-eight percent and 44% wanted to negotiate when expected survival and dying, respectively, were discussed. Patients with higher depression scores were more likely to want to know shortest time to live without treatment (P = .047) and average survival (P = .049). Lower depression levels were significantly associated with never wanting to discuss expected survival (P = .03). Patients with an expected survival of years were more likely to want to discuss life expectancy when first diagnosed with metastases (P = .02). Conclusion: Most metastatic cancer patients want detailed prognostic information but prefer to negotiate the extent, format, and timing of the information they receive from their oncologists.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2004.04.095

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kaplowitz SA, Osuch JR, Safron D, et al: Physician communication with seriously ill cancer patients: Results of a survey of physicians, in de Vries B (ed): End of Life Issues: Interdisciplinary and multidimensional perspectives . New York, Springer Publishing Company, pp 205,1999-227
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.977 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.977

Cited by

See all 503

Metadata

Authors
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. A., Lobb, E. A., Pendlebury, S., Leighl, N., Goldstein, D., Lo, S. K., & Tattersall, M. H. N.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2004-05-01
Volume
22
Issue
9
Pages
1721-1730
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2152819888
Cited by
503
References
49
FWCI
14.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer Patient Preferences for Communication of Prognosis in the Metastatic Setting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2004.04.095
The paper
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. A., Lobb, E. A., Pendlebury, S., Leighl, N., Goldstein, D., Lo, S. K., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2004). Cancer Patient Preferences for Communication of Prognosis in the Metastatic Setting. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.04.095

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.