Aim: We sought the attitudes of people with a cancer experience to using best-case, worst-case, and typical scenarios for survival to explain life expectancy.
Methods: Oncology clinic attendees and Breast Cancer Network Australia (BCNA) members completed a survey describing two formats for explaining life expectancy to a hypothetical patient with advanced cancer - providing either three scenarios for survival or just the median survival time.
Results: Characteristics of the 505 respondents from outpatient clinics (n=251) and BCNA (n=254) were: median age of 58 years, female 74%, and breast primary 64%. More respondents agreed that explaining three scenarios (vs. median survival) would make sense (93% vs. 75%), be helpful (93% vs. 69%), convey hope (68% vs. 44%), and reassure (60% vs. 40%), while fewer respondents agreed that explaining three scenarios (vs. median survival) would upset people (24% vs. 36%); all p values <0.001. Most respondents agreed that each scenario should be presented: best case 89%, worst case 82%, and typical 92%. For information about their own prognosis, 88% preferred all three scenarios and 5% a single estimate of the median. Respondents with higher education were more likely to agree that presenting three scenarios would be helpful (95% vs. 90%, p=0.05). Respondents with breast cancer were more likely to agree that explaining three scenarios would upset people (31% vs. 13%, p<0.001).
Conclusions: Most respondents judged presentation of best-case, worst-case, and typical scenarios preferable and more helpful and reassuring than presentation of just the median survival time when explaining life expectancy to patients with advanced cancer.