Patient-reported distress as an early warning sign of unmet palliative care needs and increased healthcare utilization in patients with advanced cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients' sources of distress are often unaddressed, and patient-reported distress data could be utilized to identify those with unmet and impending care needs. We explored the association between moderate/severe distress and healthcare utilization in a large sample of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Adult patients treated between July 2013 and March 2019. Data from the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) and the accompanying "Problem List" were extracted from the EHR. A DT score of ≥ 4 indicates "actionable distress." Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive analysis for patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and sources of distress. Generalized linear mixed models were fit to determine the relationship between distress and healthcare utilization (hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visit, or both). RESULTS: The ten most frequently reported problems were from the Physical and Emotional domains of the Problem List. Distress was mostly related to physical symptoms (pain, fatigue) and emotional issues (worry, fears, sadness, nervousness). Patients with actionable distress generally reported more problems across all their visits. Actionable distress was associated with higher odds of the composite outcome measure of hospitalization or visiting the ED, within both the next 3 months (OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.19, 1.58; p < 0.001) and 6 months (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.03, 1.37; p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Patients with significant distress had marked utilization of ED and inpatient services. DT scores are a source of untapped data in the EHR that can highlight patients in need of intervention, including palliative care and cancer support services.

A novel decision aid for acute myeloid leukemia: a feasibility and preliminary efficacy trial.

PURPOSE: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by a poor prognosis but also a paradoxical possibility of cure. This renders decision-making complex and imminent. Unfortunately, many patients with AML misestimate their prognosis and treatment risk. While decision aids can improve illness understanding and reduce decisional conflict, there are no validated decision aids for AML. We developed and tested a novel AML decision aid (NCT03442452). METHODS: Patients (n = 20) were recruited at Duke University from May 2018 to February 2019. Participants completed assessments of AML knowledge and decisional conflict, before and after using the electronic decision aid. The primary endpoint was feasibility (endpoint met if > 80% of study participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses of efficacy were conducted using paired t tests for dependent pre-/post-samples. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of feasibility was met (100% of participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses showed improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict after using the decision aid. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 11.8 (out of 18) correct items at baseline to 15.1 correct items after using the decision aid (mean difference 3.35; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict scores reduced significantly from baseline to post-test as well (mean difference - 6.5; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that our AML decision aid is a useful tool to improve the patient experience and promote shared decision-making in AML. A randomized efficacy trial is planned.