'Curative' treatments and palliative care: the lack of consensus
A partir d'une revue de la littérature, cette étude fait le point sur l'utilisation conjointe et la signification des termes de traitements curatifs et palliatifs par les auteurs de publications scientifiques
Purpose of review: A survey was performed to assess whether authors who report about palliative treatments or palliative care share a common understanding of 'curative' treatments. Recent findings: Of 107 authors from publications about cancer who used both 'palliative' and 'curative' in the same abstract, 42 (39%) responded. The majority (n = 24; 57%) understood 'curative' treatments as 'aimed at complete absence of disease for the rest of life', but 43% (n = 18) did not share this view. For example, 19% (n = 7) stated that the term describes cancer-directed therapy for prolongation of life or even regardless of the aspired goal. Summary: In the care for cancer patients, unambiguous terminology is essential for the participatory and interdisciplinary decision-making process. Clinicians, researchers and policy makers should be aware of the difference between curative and disease-modifying therapies. Otherwise, this may be a major source of misunderstandings as disease-modifying therapy may be indicated in the incurable stages of the disease as well. In these palliative situations, it is essential to identify the realistic aim(s) of the therapy: prolongation of life, alleviation of suffering or both. (C) 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.