Objective Patients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and the possibility of trading quality of life (QoL) for length of life (LoL). Little information is available regarding patients' preferences and attitudes toward their cancer treatment and the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life. The aim of this review is to determine the complex trade‐offs and underpinning factors that make patients with cancer choose quality over quantity of life. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MeSH terms: cancer, longevity or LoL, QoL, decision making, trade‐off, and health utility. Articles retrieved were published between 1942 and October 2018. Results Out of 4393 articles, 30 were included in this review. Older age, which may be linked to declining physical status, was associated with a preference for QoL over LoL. Younger patients were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment to increase survival years. Preference for QoL and LoL was not influenced by gender, education, religion, having children, marital status, or type of cancer. Patients with better health valued LoL and inversely those with poorer physical status preferred QoL. Conclusion Baseline QoL and future expectations of life seem to be key determinants of preference for QoL versus LoL in cancer patients. In‐depth studies are required to understand these trade‐offs and the compromises patients are willing to make regarding QoL or LoL, especially in older patients with naturally limited life expectancy.

Satisfaction with care, use of services, and personal costs were also monitored. Results:The ulcers of patients in the clinic group tended to heal sooner than those in the control group over the whole 12 month follow up (log rank P = 0.03). At 12 weeks, 34% of patients in the clinic group were healed compared with 24% in the control. The crude initial healing rate of ulcers in intervention compared with control patients was 1.45 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.03). No significant differences were found between the groups in health status. Mean total NHS costs were £878.06 per year for the clinic group and £859.34 for the control (P = 0.89). Conclusions: Community based leg ulcer clinics with trained nurses using four layer bandaging is more effective than traditional home based treatment. This benefit is achieved at a small additional cost and could be delivered at reduced cost if certain service configurations were used.

In view of the difficulties in recruitment and the potential biases introduced by selective loss of patients and the delay in obtaining a valid second opinion in the study group, no valid conclusions can be drawn regarding the clinical performance of this model of SF telemedicine. With regard to digital photography in suspected skin cancer, it is unlikely that this approach can dramatically reduce the need for conventional clinical consultations, whilst still maintaining clinical safety. Additional research on the assessment of diagnostic and management agreement between clinicians would be valuable in this and other fields of research.

Older women have no strong preference for either treatment option but are concerned that the treatment is effective and causes minimal disruption to their quality of life and independence. This study suggests that medical consultations may need to be adapted to reflect the passive acceptance of 'expert' advice in the majority of women in this age group.

No abstract