Screening Tool Identifies Older Adults With Cancer at Risk for Poor Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists often struggle with managing the complex issues unique to older adults with cancer, and research is needed to identify patients at risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: This study enrolled patients aged ≥70 years within 8 weeks of a diagnosis of incurable gastrointestinal cancer. Patient-reported surveys were used to assess vulnerability (Vulnerable Elders Survey [scores ≥3 indicate a positive screen for vulnerability]), quality of life (QoL; EORTC Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire [higher scores indicate better QoL]), and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS; higher scores indicate greater symptom burden] and Geriatric Depression Scale [higher scores indicate greater depression symptoms]). Unplanned hospital visits within 90 days of enrollment and overall survival were evaluated. We used regression models to examine associations among vulnerability, QoL, symptom burden, hospitalizations, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 132 patients approached, 102 (77.3%) were enrolled (mean [M] ± SD age, 77.25 ± 5.75 years). Nearly half (45.1%) screened positive for vulnerability, and these patients were older (M, 79.45 vs 75.44 years; P=.001) and had more comorbid conditions (M, 2.13 vs 1.34; P=.017) compared with nonvulnerable patients. Vulnerable patients reported worse QoL across all domains (global QoL: M, 53.26 vs 66.82; P=.041; physical QoL: M, 58.95 vs 88.24; P<.001; role QoL: M, 53.99 vs 82.12; P=.001; emotional QoL: M, 73.19 vs 85.76; P=.007; cognitive QoL: M, 79.35 vs 92.73; P=.011; social QoL: M, 59.42 vs 82.42; P<.001), higher symptom burden (ESAS total: M, 31.05 vs 15.00; P<.001), and worse depression score (M, 4.74 vs 2.25; P<.001). Vulnerable patients had a higher risk of unplanned hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.08-5.27; P=.032) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.14-4.48; P=.020). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with cancer who screen positive as vulnerable experience a higher symptom burden, greater healthcare use, and worse survival. Screening tools to identify vulnerable patients should be integrated into practice to guide clinical care.

Pilot Randomized Trial of a Transdisciplinary Geriatric and Palliative Care Intervention for Older Adults With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients' palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients' quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen's d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect. RESULTS: From February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (-0.77 vs -3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (-0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs -0.80; ES = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients' unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients' QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

Stigmatic and Sympathetic Attitudes Toward Cancer Patients Who Smoke: A Qualitative Analysis of an Online Discussion Board Forum.

INTRODUCTION: A significant minority of patients continue to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. Cancer patients who smoke experience stigma that can negatively impact health outcomes. We explored publicly shared perspectives about cancer patients who continued to smoke post-diagnosis. METHODS: An online news article, published in January 2012, summarized the findings of smoking prevalence among patients with lung cancer and colorectal cancer enrolled in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium trial. In response, written comments were posted on the articles' public discussion board. Applying principles of grounded theory, we conducted a document analysis and established a conceptual framework to develop a model by which to explain factors underlying stigmatic and sympathetic attitudes toward cancer survivors who continue to smoke. RESULTS: Personal experiences with cancer, smoking, and statistical literacy were found to influence beliefs about cancer and smoking, which in turn influenced stigmatic or sympathetic attitudes. More sympathetic attitudes were expressed by individuals who had personal experiences with smoking, believed cancer is multicausal, identified smoking as an addiction, or considered extrinsic factors responsible for smoking. Individuals who did not have personal experiences with cancer or smoking, had low statistical literacy, believed that smoking necessarily and directly causes cancer, and focused on intrinsic responsibilities for smoking tended to express more stigmatic attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings raise awareness and provide insight into stigma against cancer survivors who smoke and can help inform strategies for reducing stigma against this vulnerable group. IMPLICATIONS: This study helps raise awareness of stigma toward cancer patients who smoke and provides insight into the processes that may influence stigmatic as compared to sympathetic attitudes toward these patients. Results suggest that population-based strategies to educate the public regarding the nature of nicotine addiction, difficulty of quitting, and benefits of quitting for cancer patients may be useful for reducing stigma against cancer patients with a smoking history.

Communicating the Information Needed for Treatment Decision Making Among Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Preoperative Therapy.

PURPOSE: Preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer represents a new treatment option with the potential to improve outcomes for patients, yet with complex risks. By not discussing the potential risks and benefits of new treatment options, clinicians may hinder patients from making informed decisions. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, we conducted a mixed-methods study. First, we elicited clinicians' (n = 13 medical, radiation, and surgery clinicians), patients' (n = 18), and caregivers' (n = 14) perceptions of information needed for decision making regarding preoperative therapy and generated a list of key elements. Next, we audio-recorded patients' (n = 20) initial multidisciplinary oncology visits and used qualitative content analyses to describe how clinicians discussed this information and surveyed patients to ask if they heard each key element. RESULTS: We identified 13 key elements of information patients need when making decisions regarding preoperative therapy, including treatment complications, alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes. Patients reported hearing infrequently about complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 3 of 20]) and alternatives (n = 8 of 20) but frequently recalled logistics and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 19 of 20]). Clinicians infrequently discussed complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 7 of 20]), but frequently discussed alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 20 of 20]). No overarching differences in clinician discussion content emerged to explain why patients did or did not hear about each key element. CONCLUSION: We identified key elements of information patients with pancreatic cancer need when considering preoperative therapy. Patients infrequently heard about treatment complications and alternatives, while frequently hearing about logistics and potential outcomes, underscoring areas for improvement in educating patients about new treatment options in oncology.

Effects of a perioperative geriatric intervention for older adults with Cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery. METHODS: From 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥ 65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P = 0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.690), or complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P = 0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P = 0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P = 0.137) remained non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

Perceptions of medical status and treatment goal among older adults with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported medical status and treatment goal are measures of prognostic understanding with demonstrated relationships to important clinical and patient-reported outcomes in the general cancer population. Among older adults, relationships between these measures and other patient-reported (quality of life [QOL], symptoms, functional impairment) and clinical (hospitalization risk, survival) outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: We enrolled patients ≥70 with advanced gastrointestinal cancers, collecting patient-reported medical status (terminally ill vs not), treatment goal (curative vs non-curative), QOL (EORTC-Elderly Cancer Patients), symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), and functional impairment (activities of daily living [ADLs]). We also obtained information about hospitalizations and survival. To explore relationships between patient-reported medical status, treatment goal, QOL, symptoms, functional impairment, hospitalizations, and survival, we used regression models adjusted for age, sex, and education. RESULTS: Of 103 patients, 49.5% reported terminally ill status and 64.0% a non-curative treatment goal. Terminally ill status was associated with worse QOL (EORTC illness burden: 53.59 vs 35.26, p = 0.001), higher symptom burden (ESAS: 28.15 vs 16.79, p = 0.002), more functional impairment (ADLs: 3.63 vs 5.24, p = 0.006), greater hospitalization risk (HR = 2.41, p = 0.020), and worse survival (HR = 1.93, p = 0.010). We did not find associations between patient-reported treatment goal and these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with advanced cancer, report of terminally ill status was associated with other important patient-reported and clinical outcomes, suggesting disease severity may inform illness perceptions. We did not find similar associations for patient-reported treatment goal, indicating that questions related to medical status and treatment goal measure different constructs and more nuanced measures are needed.

Potentially Avoidable Hospital Readmissions in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer often prefer to avoid time in the hospital; however, data are lacking on the prevalence and predictors of potentially avoidable readmissions (PARs) among those with advanced cancer. METHODS: We enrolled patients with advanced cancer from September 2, 2014, to November 21, 2014, who had an unplanned hospitalization and assessed their patient-reported symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) at the time of admission. For 1 year after enrollment, we reviewed patients' health records to determine the primary reason for every hospital readmission and we classified readmissions as PARs using adapted Graham's criteria. We examined predictors of PARs using nonlinear mixed-effects models with binomial distribution. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 (86.2%) of 232 patients who were approached. For these 200 patients, we reviewed 277 total hospital readmissions and identified 108 (39.0%) of these as PARs. The most common reasons for PARs were premature discharge from a prior hospitalization (30.6%) and failure of timely follow-up (28.7%). PAR hospitalizations were more likely than non-PAR hospitalizations to experience symptoms as the primary reason for admission (28.7% v 13.0%; P = .001). We found that married patients were less likely to experience PARs (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.57; P < .001) and that those with a higher physical symptom burden were more likely to experience PARs (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.05; P = .012). CONCLUSION: We observed that a substantial proportion of hospital readmissions are potentially avoidable and found that patients' symptom burdens predict PARs. These findings underscore the need to assess and address the symptom burden of hospitalized patients with advanced cancer in this highly symptomatic population.

End-of-Life Care in Patients with Metastatic Lung Cancer Harboring Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations benefit from improved survival and quality of life with EGFR-directed therapy. We sought to explore if these improvements in cancer care impacted the delivery of end-of-life (EOL) care in this population. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients cared for at our institution with the diagnosis of metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC who died by January 2015. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included. The majority of patients were female (68%), white or Asian (97%), and never or minimal smokers (76%). Forty-two out of fifty-eight patients (72%) received chemotherapy within 30 days of death. Forty-one out of sixty-one patients (67%) had a hospital admission within 30 days of death. EOL outcomes were known for 53 patients. Of these, 34 (64%) patients enrolled on hospice. The median length of stay on hospice was 6 days (range 0-206). Thirty-three (62%) patients died at home with hospice services or at an inpatient hospice facility. Eighteen patients (34%) died in the hospital. CONCLUSION: Patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations had high rates of chemotherapy use and hospital admissions in the last month of life, and many died in the hospital. Hospital admissions near the EOL and short admissions to hospice are indicators of poor quality EOL care and are likely a result of prolonged chemotherapy administration in this population. Thus, current healthcare delivery models may be insufficient to provide comprehensive EOL care for patients with EGFR mutations.