Stepped Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite the evidence for early palliative care improving outcomes, it has not been widely implemented in part due to palliative care workforce limitations. Objective: To evaluate a stepped-care model to deliver less resource-intensive and more patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority trial of stepped vs early palliative care conducted between February 12, 2018, and December 15, 2022, at 3 academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Durham, North Carolina, among 507 patients who had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer within the past 12 weeks. Intervention: Step 1 of the intervention was an initial palliative care visit within 4 weeks of enrollment and subsequent visits only at the time of a change in cancer treatment or after a hospitalization. During step 1, patients completed a measure of quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]; range, 0-136, with higher scores indicating better QOL) every 6 weeks, and those with a 10-point or greater decrease from baseline were stepped up to meet with the palliative care clinician every 4 weeks (intervention step 2). Patients assigned to early palliative care had palliative care visits every 4 weeks after enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Noninferiority (margin = -4.5) of the effect of stepped vs early palliative care on patient-reported QOL on the FACT-L at week 24. Results: The sample (n = 507) mostly included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (78.3%; mean age, 66.5 years; 51.4% female; 84.6% White). The mean number of palliative care visits by week 24 was 2.4 for stepped palliative care and 4.7 for early palliative care (adjusted mean difference, -2.3; P < .001). FACT-L scores at week 24 for the stepped palliative care group were noninferior to scores among those receiving early palliative care (adjusted FACT-L mean score, 100.6 vs 97.8, respectively; difference, 2.9; lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit, -0.1; P < .001 for noninferiority). Although the rate of end-of-life care communication was also noninferior between groups, noninferiority was not demonstrated for days in hospice (adjusted mean, 19.5 with stepped palliative care vs 34.6 with early palliative care; P = .91). Conclusions and Relevance: A stepped-care model, with palliative care visits occurring only at key points in patients' cancer trajectories and using a decrement in QOL to trigger more intensive palliative care exposure, resulted in fewer palliative care visits without diminishing the benefits for patients' QOL. While stepped palliative care was associated with fewer days in hospice, it is a more scalable way to deliver early palliative care to enhance patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03337399.

Why and How to Integrate Early Palliative Care Into Cutting-Edge Personalized Cancer Care.

Early palliative care, palliative care integrated with oncology care early in the course of illness, has myriad benefits for patients and their caregivers, including improved quality of life, reduced physical and psychological symptom burden, enhanced prognostic awareness, and reduced health care utilization at the end of life. Although ASCO and others recommend early palliative care for all patients with advanced cancer, widespread implementation of early palliative care has not been realized because of barriers such as insufficient reimbursement and a palliative care workforce shortage. Investigators have recently tested several implementation strategies to overcome these barriers, including triggers for palliative care consultations, telehealth delivery, navigator-delivered interventions, and primary palliative care interventions. More research is needed to identify mechanisms to distribute palliative care optimally and equitably. Simultaneously, the transformation of the oncology treatment landscape has led to shifts in the supportive care needs of patients and caregivers, who may experience longer, uncertain trajectories of cancer. Now, palliative care also plays a clear role in the care of patients with hematologic malignancies and may be beneficial for patients undergoing phase I clinical trials and their caregivers. Further research and clinical guidance regarding how to balance the risks and benefits of opioid therapy and safely manage cancer-related pain across this wide range of settings are urgently needed. The strengths of early palliative care in supporting patients' and caregivers' coping and centering decisions on their goals and values remain valuable in the care of patients receiving cutting-edge personalized cancer care.

Study protocol for a randomized trial of a supportive care mobile application to improve symptoms, coping, and quality of life in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) often experience burdensome symptoms, emotional distress, and poor quality of life (QOL). While national guidelines recommend early palliative care to address these supportive care needs, most patients with advanced NSCLC lack access to such comprehensive care. Our aim in the current study is to test a novel model of palliative care delivery and use of innovative technology to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a supportive care mobile application (app) for improving symptom management and adaptive coping in patients with advanced NSCLC. We will enroll 120 patients with unresectable Stage III or IV NSCLC diagnosed within the past 12 weeks receiving care with palliative intent at a major academic comprehensive cancer center and its community affiliates. The study will take place in two phases, the first of which will be dedicated to adapting an evidence-based, early palliative care treatment guide and prior supportive care mobile app intervention to address the specific symptom management and coping needs of patients with advanced NSCLC. The second phase of the study will be a two-group, randomized controlled trial. Study patients will complete baseline self-report measures of symptoms, mood, coping skills, and QOL, after which they will be randomized to receive either the mobile app intervention combined with usual oncology care or usual oncology care alone. Intervention patients will use a tablet computer to self-administer the mobile app, which consists of six modules that teach evidence-based skills for managing burdensome symptoms and coping effectively with advanced cancer and its treatment. At 12 weeks follow up, patients in both groups will repeat the same self-report measures. We will use descriptive statistics to determine feasibility metrics of enrollment and retention rates. For secondary self-report measures, we will use linear regression controlling for baseline values. The results of the present study will contribute to a growing body of evidence regarding the supportive care needs of patients with advanced cancer and will have implications for how best to use innovative technology to widely disseminate comprehensive supportive care services to all patients who may benefit. Clinical Trial Registration: [www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier[NCT04629300].

Goals of Care Conversations Documented By an Embedded Emergency Department-Palliative Care Team During COVID.

Background: There has been growing interest around integrating palliative care (PC) into emergency department (ED) practice but concern about feasibility and impact. In 2020, as the COVID pandemic was escalating, our hospital's ED and PC leadership created a new service of PC clinicians embedded in the ED. Objectives: To describe the clinical work of the embedded ED-PC team, in particular what was discussed during goals of care conversations. Design: Prospective patient identification followed by retrospective electronic health record chart extraction and analysis. Settings/Subjects: Adult ED patients in an academic medical center in the United States. Measurements/Results: The embedded ED-PC team saw 159 patients, whose mean age was 77.5. Nearly all patients were admitted, 48.0% had confirmed or presumed COVID, and overall mortality was 29.1%. Of the patients seen, 58.5% had a serious illness conversation documented as part of the consult. The most common topics addressed were patient (or family) illness understanding (96%), what was most important (92%), and a clinical recommendation (91%). Clinicians provided a prognostic estimate in 57/93 (61.3%) of documented discussions. In the majority of cases where prognosis was discussed, it was described as poor. Conclusion: Specialist PC clinicians embedded in the ED can engage in high-quality goals of care conversations that have the potential to align patients' hospital trajectory with their preferences.

Developing a novel integrated geriatric palliative care consultation program for the emergency department.

With the aging of our population, older adults are living longer with multiple chronic conditions, frailty, and life-limiting illnesses, which creates specific challenges for emergency departments (EDs). Older adults and those with serious illnesses have high rates of ED use and hospitalization, and the emergency care they receive may be discordant with their goals and values. In response, new models of care delivery have begun to emerge to address both geriatric and palliative care needs in the ED. However, these programs are typically siloed from one another despite significant overlap. To develop a new combined model, we assembled stakeholders and thought leaders at the intersection of emergency medicine, palliative care, and geriatrics and used a consensus process to define elements of an ideal model of a combined palliative care and geriatric intervention in the ED. This article provides a brief history of geriatric and palliative care integration in EDs and presents the integrated geriatric and palliative care model developed.

Prognostic communication about lung cancer in the precision oncology era: A multiple-perspective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with cancer prefer to know their prognosis, prognostic communication between oncologists and patients is often insufficient. Targeted therapies for lung cancer improve survival yet are not curative and produce variable responses. This study sought to describe how oncologists communicate about prognosis with patients receiving targeted therapies for lung cancer. METHODS: This qualitative study included 39 patients with advanced lung cancer with targetable mutations, 14 caregivers, and 10 oncologists. Semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers and focus groups or interviews with oncologists were conducted to explore their experiences with prognostic communication. One oncology follow-up visit was audio-recorded per patient. A framework approach was used to analyze interview transcripts, and a content analysis of patient-oncologist dialogue was conducted. Themes were identified within each source and then integrated across sources to create a multidimensional description of prognostic communication. RESULTS: Six themes in prognostic communication were identified: Patients with targetable mutations develop a distinct identity in the lung cancer community that affects their information-seeking and self-advocacy; oncologists set high expectations for targeted therapy; the uncertain availability of new therapies complicates prognostic discussions; patients and caregivers have variable information preferences; patients raise questions about progression by asking about physical symptoms or scan results; and patients' expectations of targeted therapy influence their medical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Optimistic patient-oncologist communication shapes the expectations of patients receiving targeted therapy for lung cancer and affects their decision-making. Further research and clinical guidance are needed to help oncologists to communicate uncertain outcomes effectively.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Depression Symptoms in a Cross Section of Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Adults with advanced lung cancer experience reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and psychological symptoms at diagnosis. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic worsened HRQOL among patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Design: We analyzed baseline data from two randomized controlled trials of early palliative care to compare HRQOL and depression symptoms among those enrolled during the pandemic (January 2020 to January 2021) versus prepandemic (March 2018 to January 2019). Setting/Subjects: This cohort included patients recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer in two multisite studies. Measurements: We used analysis of covariance to calculate adjusted mean differences between groups with the timeframe as an independent variable and HRQOL (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) and depression symptoms (using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) as dependent variables, adjusting for age, gender, relationship status, performance status, symptoms, and time since diagnosis. We tested for an interaction between the COVID-19 timeframe and relationship status. Results: Neither HRQOL (adjusted mean difference -1.78; p = 0.137) nor depression symptoms (0.06; p = 0.889) differed between patients enrolled pre-COVID-19 (n = 665) relative to those enrolled during COVID-19 (n = 191) in adjusted analyses. Relationship status moderated the effect of the COVID-19 timeframe on HRQOL; unmarried patients experienced worse HRQOL during COVID-19 (adjusted mean difference: -5.25; p = 0.011). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic did not further reduce HRQOL or increase depression symptoms among patients recently diagnosed with lung cancer, but did worsen HRQOL for unmarried patients in moderation analysis. Psychosocial evaluation and supportive care are important for all patients, particularly those with limited social support. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT03337399 and NCT03375489.

Mapping the future for research in emergency medicine palliative care: A research roadmap.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of emergency medicine (EM) and palliative care (PC) has been recognized as an essential area of focus, with evidence suggesting that increased integration improves outcomes. This has resulted in increased research in EM PC. No current framework exists to help guide investigation and innovation. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to convene a working group to develop a roadmap that would help provide focus and prioritization for future research. METHODS: Participants were identified based on clinical, operation, policy, and research expertise in both EM and PC and spanned physician, nursing, social work, and patient perspectives. The research roadmap setting process consisted of three distinct phases that were time staggered over 12 months and facilitated through three live video convenings, asynchronous input via an online document, and a series of smaller video convenings of work groups focused on specific topics. RESULTS: Gaps in the literature were identified and informed the four key areas for future research. Consensus was reached on these domains and the associated research questions in each domain to help guide future study. The key domains included work focused on the value imperative for PC in the emergency setting, models of care delivery, disparities, and measurement of impact and efficacy. Additionally, the group identified key methodological considerations for doing work at the intersection of EM and PC. CONCLUSIONS: There are several key domains and associated questions that can help guide future research in ED PC. Focus on these areas, and answering these questions, offers the potential to improve the emergency care of patients with PC needs.

Patient-Centered Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer.

The evidence base demonstrating the benefits of an early focus on palliative care for patients with serious cancers, including advanced lung cancer, is substantial. Early involvement of specialty-trained palliative care clinicians in the care of patients with advanced lung cancer improves patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, and health care delivery, including hospice utilization. Since the time that many of these palliative care trials were conducted, the paradigm of cancer care for many cancers, including lung cancer, has changed dramatically. The majority of patients with advanced lung cancer are now treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapies, both of which have had a significant impact on patient's experience and outcomes. With this changing landscape of lung cancer therapeutics, patients are facing new and different challenges, including dealing with novel side effect profiles and coping with greater uncertainty regarding their prognosis. Patients who are living longer with their advanced cancer also struggle with how to address survivorship issues, such as sexual health and exercise, and decision making about end-of-life care. Although palliative care clinicians remain well-suited to address these care needs, they may need to learn new skills to support patients treated with novel therapies. Additionally, as the experience of patients with advanced lung cancer is becoming more varied and individualized, palliative care research interventions and clinical programs should also be delivered in a patient-centered manner to best meet patient's needs and improve their outcomes. Tailored and technology-based palliative care interventions are promising strategies for delivering patient-centered palliative care.

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.

Palliative care in the emergency department: A qualitative study exploring barriers, facilitators, desired clinician qualities, and future directions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the perceived qualities of successful palliative care (PC) providers in the emergency department (ED), barriers and facilitators to ED-PC, and clinicians' perspectives on the future of ED-PC. METHOD: This qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted in June-August 2020. Interviews were analyzed via a two-phase Rapid Analysis. The study's primary outcomes (innovations in ED-PC during COVID) are published elsewhere. In this secondary analysis, we examine interviewee responses to broader questions about ED-PC currently and in the future. RESULTS: PC providers perceived as successful in their work in the ED were described as autonomous, competent, flexible, fast, and fluent in ED language and culture. Barriers to ED-PC integration included the ED environment, lack of access to PC providers at all times, the ED perception of PC, and the lack of a supporting financial model. Facilitators to ED-PC integration included proactive identification of patients who would benefit from PC, ED-focused PC education and tools, PC presence in the ED, and data supporting ED-PC. Increased primary PC education for ED staff, increased automation, and innovative ED-PC models were seen as areas for future growth. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our findings provide useful information for PC programs considering expanding their ED presence, particularly as this is the first study to our knowledge that examines traits of successful PC providers in the ED environment. Our findings also suggest that, despite growth in the arena of ED-PC, barriers and facilitators remain similar to those identified previously. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact that ED-PC initiatives may have on patient and system outcomes, to identify a financial model to maintain ED-PC integration, and to examine whether perceptions of successful providers align with objective measures of the same.

Evaluation of disseminated tumor cells and circulating tumor cells in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant zoledronic acid.

We evaluated disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in patients with stage I-III breast cancer with >4 MM/mL DTC at baseline who received adjuvant zoledronic acid (ZOL). ZOL was administered every 4 weeks for 24 months, and patients underwent bone marrow aspiration at baseline, and 12 and 24 months of ZOL. Complete DTC response (<4 DTC/mL), serial CTCs, survival, recurrence, and toxicity were determined. Forty-five patients received ZOL. Median baseline DTC was 13.3/mL. Significant reduction in median DTC occurred from baseline to 12 months, and 24 months. Complete DTC response was seen in 32% at 12 months, and 26% at 24 months. Nine patients developed recurrence. Baseline DTC > 30/mL and CTC > 0.8/mL were significantly associated with recurrence and death. Serial reduction in DTCs occurred. Higher baseline DTC > 30/mL and CTC > 0.8/mL correlated with recurrence and death.

Effect of a multidisciplinary Severe Immunotherapy Complications Service on outcomes for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, Massachusetts General Hospital implemented the Severe Immunotherapy Complications (SIC) Service, a multidisciplinary care team for patients hospitalized with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), a unique spectrum of toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study's objectives were to evaluate the intervention's (1) effect on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization, and (2) ability to collect biological samples via a central infrastructure, in order to study the mechanisms responsible for irAEs. METHODS: A hospital database was used to identify patients who received ICIs for a malignancy and were hospitalized with severe irAEs, before (April 2, 2016-October 3, 2017) and after (October 3, 2017-October 24, 2018) SIC Service initiation. The primary outcome was readmission rate after index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) for admissions, corticosteroid and non-steroidal second-line immunosuppression use, ICI discontinuation, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: In the pre-SIC period, 127 of 1169 patients treated with ICIs were hospitalized for irAEs; in the post-SIC period, 122 of 1159. After SIC service initiation, reductions were observed in irAE readmission rate (14.8% post-SIC vs 25.9% pre-SIC; OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.95; p=0.036) and readmission LOS (median 6 days post-SIC vs 7 days pre-SIC; 95% CI -16.03 to -0.14; p=0.046). No significant pre-initiation and post-initiation differences were detected in corticosteroid use, second-line immunosuppression, ICI discontinuation, or inpatient mortality rates. The SIC Service collected 789 blood and tissue samples from 234 patients with suspected irAEs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report that establishing a highly subspecialized care team focused on irAEs is associated with improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare utilization. Furthermore, the SIC Service successfully integrated blood and tissue collection safety into routine care.

Knowledge About Risks, Benefits, and Curative Potential of Immunotherapy Among Patients with Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is the first-line treatment for melanoma and lung cancer and brings new risks of immune-related adverse events. We aimed to describe patients' knowledge about risks, benefits, and goals of immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients with advanced melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer that used a 9-item knowledge survey and questions from the Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire. RESULTS: We surveyed 105 participants (57 with melanoma, 48 with lung cancer) with median age 69 years (range 36-89). Participants' responses revealed knowledge deficits about immunotherapy mechanism of action and lack of awareness about the timing and severity of side effects. One third (34%; 36/105) of participants reported that the primary goal of their treatment is to cure their cancer. CONCLUSION: Given the widespread use of immunotherapy, patients would benefit from educational tools so that they know what to expect regarding side effects and prognosis.

Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a call to action for collecting and sharing clinical trial and real-world data.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer, improving outcomes in patients with advanced malignancies. The use of ICIs in clinical practice, and the number of ICI clinical trials, are rapidly increasing. The use of ICIs in combination with other forms of cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or targeted therapy, is also expanding. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) can be serious in up to a third of patients. Critical questions remain surrounding the characteristics and outcomes of irAEs, and how they may affect the overall risk-benefit relationship for combination therapies. This article proposes a framework for irAE classification and reporting, and identifies limitations in the capture and sharing of data on irAEs from current clinical trial and real-world data. We outline key gaps and suggestions for clinicians, clinical investigators, drug sponsors, patients, and other stakeholders to make these critical data more available to researchers for pooled analysis, to advance contemporary understanding of irAEs, and ultimately improve the efficacy of ICIs.

Experience and supportive care needs of metastatic lung cancer survivors living with uncertainty: a brief qualitative report.

PURPOSE: Molecularly targeted therapies have revolutionized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. Many patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving targeted therapy may live several years with incurable cancer. We sought to describe how these metastatic cancer survivors and their caregivers experience uncertainty about the future and identify their unmet supportive care needs. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving targeted therapy (n = 39) and their caregivers (n = 16). We used a framework approach to code and analyze the qualitative data. RESULTS: Metastatic lung cancer survivors described awareness of their mortality and the possibility that their cancer could progress at any time. Though some found ways to cope, many felt inadequately supported to manage their distress, especially since they were "doing fine medically." Survivors struggled with decisions about working and managing their finances given their uncertain life expectancy and sought trustworthy lung cancer information in plain language. They wished to compare experiences with other patients with their molecular subtype of NSCLC. Participants desired comprehensive cancer care that includes psychosocial support, preparation for the future, and ways to promote their own health, such as through lifestyle changes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving targeted therapy and their caregivers experience distress related to living with uncertainty and desire more coping support, connection with peers, information, and healthy lifestyle guidance. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patients living with treatable yet incurable cancer and their caregivers are a growing population of cancer survivors. Recognition of their unmet needs may inform the development of tailored support services to help them live well with cancer.

Temporal Trends and Outcomes Among Patients Admitted for Immune-Related Adverse Events: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study from 2011 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to characterize severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) seen among hospitalized patients and to examine risk factors for irAE admissions and clinically relevant outcomes, including length of stay, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) discontinuation, readmission, and death. METHODS: Patients who received ICI therapy (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, or any ICI combination) at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and were hospitalized at MGH following ICI initiation between January 1, 2011, and October 24, 2018, were identified using pharmacy and hospital admission databases. Medical records of all irAE admissions were reviewed, and specialist review with defined criteria was performed. Demographic data, relevant clinical history (malignancy type and most recent ICI regimen), and key admission characteristics, including dates of admission and discharge, immunosuppressive management, ICI discontinuation, readmission, and death, were collected. RESULTS: In total, 450 admissions were classified as irAE admissions and represent the study's cohort. Alongside the increasing use of ICIs at our institution, the number of patients admitted to MGH for irAEs has gradually increased every year from 9 in 2011 to 92 in 2018. The hospitalization rate per ICI recipient has declined over that same time period (25.0% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2018). The most common toxicities leading to hospitalization in our cohort were gastrointestinal (30.7%; n = 138), pulmonary (15.8%; n = 71), hepatic (14.2%; n = 64), endocrine (12.2%; n = 55), neurologic (8.4%; n = 38), cardiac (6.7%; n = 30), and dermatologic (4.4%; n = 20). Multivariable logistic regression revealed statistically significant increases in irAE admission risk for CTLA-4 monotherapy recipients (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; p < .001) and CTLA-4 plus PD-1 combination therapy recipients (OR, 1.88; p < .001), relative to PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy recipients, and patients with multiple toxicity had a 5-fold increase in inpatient mortality. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that cancer centers must be prepared to manage a wide variety of irAE types and that CTLA-4 and combination ICI regimens are more likely to cause irAE admissions, and earlier. In addition, admissions for patients with multi-organ involvement is common and those patients are at highest risk of inpatient mortality. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The number of patients admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) has gradually increased every year and the most common admissions are for gastrointestinal (30.7%), pulmonary (15/8%), and hepatic (14.2%) events. Readmission rates are high (29% at 30 days, 49% at 180 days) and 64.2% have to permanently discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Importantly, multiple concurrent toxicities were seen in 21.6% (97/450) of irAE admissions and these patients have a fivefold increased risk of inpatient death.