Prognostic Understanding, Goals of Care, and Quality of Life in Hospitalized Patients with Leukemia or Multiple Myeloma.

Background: Prior studies reveal a lack of illness understanding and prognostic awareness among patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated prognostic awareness and illness understanding among patients with acute leukemia and multiple myeloma (MM) and measured patient-hematologist discordance. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with acute leukemia and MM at Mount Sinai Hospital or Yale New Haven Hospital between August 2015 and February 2020. Patients were administered a survey assessing prognostic awareness, goals of care (GOC), and quality of life. Hematologists completed a similar survey for each patient. We assessed discordance across the cohort of patients and hematologists using the likelihood-ratio chi-square test and within patient-hematologist pairs using the kappa (κ) statistic. Results: We enrolled 185 patients (137 with leukemia and 48 with MM) and 29 hematologists. Among patients, 137 (74%) self-identified as White, 27 (15%) as Black, and 21 (11%) as Hispanic. Across the entire cohort, patients were significantly more optimistic about treatment goals compared with hematologists (p = 0.027). Within patient-hematologist pairs, hematologists were significantly more optimistic than patients with respect to line of treatment (κ = 0.03). For both leukemia and MM cohorts, patients were significantly more likely to respond "don't know" or deferring to a faith-based response with 88 (64%) and 34 (71%), respectively, compared with only 28 (20%) and 11 (23%) of hematologists, respectively. Conclusions: We observed significant discordance regarding prognosis and GOC among patients with hematological malignancies and their hematologists. These data support future interventions to improve prognostic understanding among this patient population to facilitate informed treatment choices.

Systemic Anticancer Therapy and Overall Survival in Patients With Very Advanced Solid Tumors.

Importance: Two prominent organizations, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Quality Forum (NQF), have developed a cancer quality metric aimed at reducing systemic anticancer therapy administration at the end of life. This metric, NQF 0210 (patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life), has been critiqued for focusing only on care for decedents and not including the broader population of patients who may benefit from treatment. Objective: To evaluate whether the overall population of patients with metastatic cancer receiving care at practices with higher rates of oncologic therapy for very advanced disease experience longer survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide population-based cohort study used Flatiron Health, a deidentified electronic health record database of patients diagnosed with metastatic or advanced disease, to identify adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with 1 of 6 common cancers (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial cancer) treated at health care practices from 2015 to 2019. Practices were stratified into quintiles based on retrospectively measured rates of NQF 0210, and overall survival was compared by disease type among all patients treated in each practice quintile from time of metastatic diagnosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to July 2023. Exposure: Practice-level NQF 0210 quintiles. Main Outcome and Measure: Overall survival. Results: Of 78 446 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [11.1] years; 52.2% female) across 144 practices, the most common cancer types were NSCLC (34 201 patients [43.6%]) and colorectal cancer (15 804 patients [20.1%]). Practice-level NQF 0210 rates varied from 10.9% (quintile 1) to 32.3% (quintile 5) for NSCLC and 6.8% (quintile 1) to 28.4% (quintile 5) for colorectal cancer. No statistically significant differences in survival were observed between patients treated at the highest and the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles. Compared with patients seen at practices in the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles, the hazard ratio for death among patients seen at the highest quintiles varied from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.99) for those with renal cell carcinoma to 1.41 (95% CI, 0.98-2.02) for those with urothelial cancer. These differences were not statistically significant after applying the Bonferroni-adjusted critical P = .008. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated at practices with higher NQF 0210 rates did not have improved survival. Future efforts should focus on helping oncologists identify when additional therapy is futile, developing goals of care communication skills, and aligning payment incentives with improved end-of-life care.