Health-Related Quality of Life: The Impact on Morbidity and Mortality.

In the age of ever-expanding treatments and precision medicine, the hope for cure remains the ultimate goal for patients and providers. Equally important to many patients is the quality of life achieved during and after treatment. Evidence suggests that overall quality of life is important to patients and plays a role in determining outcomes in patients with cancer. This article examines components of health-related quality of life and cancer treatment, including physical, psychosocial, and financial burden, as well as how these components affect patients' overall wellbeing and survival.

Comparing Unmet Needs to Optimize Quality: Characterizing Inpatient and Outpatient Palliative Care Populations.

CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) consultation services are available in most hospitals; outpatient services are rapidly growing to meet the needs of patients at earlier stages of the disease trajectory. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the unmet needs of PC patients by location of care to better characterize these populations. METHODS: This cross-sectional secondary analysis examined patients receiving hospital and outpatient-based PC across 10 community and academic organizations in the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance. We identified unmet symptom, advance care planning, and functional needs within our database from October 23, 2012 to January 22, 2015. Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests were performed. RESULTS: We evaluated 633 unique patients. Inpatients (n = 216) were older than outpatients (n = 417; 73 vs. 64 years, P < 0.0001). Seventy-six inpatients (38%) had a Palliative Performance Scale score ≤30%; no outpatients did (P < 0.0001). More inpatients rated their quality of life as poor compared with outpatients (39% vs. 21%, P = 0.0001). We found that outpatients presented with more unresolved pain than inpatients (58.5% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.0001). Conversely, more inpatients presented with unresolved anorexia (52.3% vs. 35.8%, P = 0.002) and dysphagia (28.1% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.0001) than outpatients. We found that inpatient setting was independently associated with lower performance status (odds ratio = 0.068, 95% confidence interval = 0.038-0.120, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with inpatients, outpatients are more burdened by pain at first PC encounter yet experience higher quality of life and better performance status. These findings suggest different clinician skillsets, and assessments are needed depending on the setting of PC consultation.

Physician Experience and Attitudes Toward Addressing the Cost of Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: We surveyed US cancer doctors to examine current attitudes toward cost discussions and how they influence decision making and practice management. METHODS: We conducted a self-administered, anonymous, electronic survey of randomly selected physician ASCO members to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost discussions reported by physicians, attitudes toward discussions of cost in clinics, and potential barriers. RESULTS: A total of 333 of 2,290 physicians responded (response rate [RR], 15%; adjusted RR after omitting nonpracticing physician ASCO members, 25%), Respondent practice settings were 45% academic and 55% community/private practice. Overall, 60% reported addressing costs frequently/always in clinic, whereas 40% addressed costs rarely/never. The largest reported barrier was lack of resources to guide discussions. Those who reported frequent discussions were significantly more likely to prioritize treatments in terms of cost and believed doctors should explain patient and societal costs. A total of 36%did not believe that doctors should discuss costs with patients. Academic practitioners were significantly less likely to discuss costs (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; P = .001) and felt less prepared for such discussions (OR, 0.492; P = .005) but were more likely to consider costs to the patient (OR, 2.68; P = .02) and society (OR, 1.822; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Although the majority of respondents believe it is important to consider out-of-pocket costs to patients, a substantial proportion do not discuss or consider costs of cancer care. Lack of consensus on the importance of such discussions and uncertainty regarding the optimal timing and content appear to be barriers to addressing costs of care with patients.

Enrollment of patients with lung and colorectal cancers onto clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Only 2% to 5% of adult patients with cancer enroll onto clinical trials. We assessed simultaneously characteristics of patients and their physicians that may be independently associated with participation. METHODS: CanCORS, a National Cancer Institute (NCI) -funded population-based observational cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with lung and colorectal cancers, sampled patients across five geographic areas, five health care delivery systems, and 15 Veterans Administration hospitals. We linked patient survey and medical record data with physician survey data to examine correlates of trial enrollment. RESULTS: Among 9,901 patients, 5.3% enrolled onto trials. Of the 9,901 patients, we linked 6,506 patients to one medical oncologist, surgeon, or radiation oncologist (physicians, N = 1,325) who responded to the physician survey and was considered their primary cancer clinician decision maker. Patient age, race, disease stage, geographic region, and health insurance were independently associated with trial enrollment. Physician factors independently associated with patient trial enrollment were being a medical oncologist, practicing at an NCI-designated cancer center, taking the lead in discussing trials with patients, and receiving increased income from trial enrollment. After simultaneously adjusting for patient and physician characteristics, only being a physician practicing at an NCI-designated cancer center (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.27) and patient female sex (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.68), age > 70 versus < 50 years (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.48), and advanced disease (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.45 to 2.37) remained independently associated with trial enrollment. CONCLUSION: Both practice environment and patient clinical and demographic characteristics are associated with cancer clinical trial enrollment; simultaneous intervention may be required when trying to increase enrollment rates.

Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (Version 2.0): a review of system assessment instrument for cancer patients.

CONTEXT: The Patient Care Monitor (PCM) is a review of systems survey delivered by means of an electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) data capture system that uses wireless tablet computers. Although the PCM 1.0 is validated, the updated PCM 2.0 has not been validated nor tested in the academic setting. OBJECTIVES: To validate and test the PCM 2.0 in three cancer populations. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-five individuals participated in three clinical trials enrolling breast (n=65), gastrointestinal (n=113), and lung (n=97) cancer patients. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficients calculated for six PCM subscales (general physical symptoms, treatment side effects, distress, despair, impaired performance, and impaired ambulation) and a Quality-of-Life Index. Construct validity was evaluated through Pearson's correlation between PCM subscales and subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--General (FACT-G), the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy--Fatigue (FACIT-F). The participants had the following characteristics: mean age was 58 years (standard deviation: 11), 52% were females, 79% were whites, 17% were blacks, 62% had no college degree, and 78% had metastatic or recurrent disease. RESULTS: Raw and normalized scores for PCM 2.0 subscales were internally consistent across study cohorts. PCM 2.0 subscales correlated significantly (P<0.05) with the corresponding subscales on FACT-G, MDASI, and FACIT-F, with the exception of FACT-G social well-being, particularly for the lung cancer population. These correlations demonstrated construct validity. PCM 2.0 results followed expected patterns by cancer etiology. Prior reports demonstrate patient satisfaction with PCM 2.0. CONCLUSION: Within three unique academic oncology populations, PCM 2.0 is a valid ePRO instrument for assessing symptoms with seven patient-centered subscale or index domains.