TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluating end-of-life chemotherapy for solid tumor and hematologic malignancy patients
AU - Baum, Laura Van Metre
AU - Rosenblum, Rachel
AU - Scarborough, Bethann
AU - Smith, Cardinale B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Despite guidelines, chemotherapy near end-of-life (EOL) remains common, particularly in hematologic malignancy (HM). Determinants of EOL chemotherapy for hospitalized cancer patients are not well elucidated. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study of patients who died inpatient within two weeks of chemotherapy in 2012 and 2014. By chart review, we identified patient characteristics, estimated performance status, categorized cause of death, and abstracted clinical intent. We identified 102 patients; 65% with HM and 35% with SM. Amongst these patients, rates of ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ status at time of death (P=0.36) were similar; patients with SM were more likely to receive a palliative care consultation (OR=7.6; 95%CI: 2.4–24.3) and less likely to die in intensive care (ICU) (OR=0.17; 95%CI=0.04–0.6). Progression of disease was the most common cause of death in both groups; patients with SM had lower likelihood of dying from a treatment-related cause (OR=0.06; 95%CI=0.01–0.32). Chemotherapy was administered closer to death in HM, 5.6 ± 4.2 days, compared to SM, 8.0 ± 3.7 days (IRR=2.18; 95%CI=0.58–3.78). For patients with HM, documented clinical reasoning emphasized curative intent. The dichotomization of palliative and oncologic care may contribute to worse EOL outcomes, particularly for patients receiving curative intent therapies.
AB - Despite guidelines, chemotherapy near end-of-life (EOL) remains common, particularly in hematologic malignancy (HM). Determinants of EOL chemotherapy for hospitalized cancer patients are not well elucidated. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study of patients who died inpatient within two weeks of chemotherapy in 2012 and 2014. By chart review, we identified patient characteristics, estimated performance status, categorized cause of death, and abstracted clinical intent. We identified 102 patients; 65% with HM and 35% with SM. Amongst these patients, rates of ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ status at time of death (P=0.36) were similar; patients with SM were more likely to receive a palliative care consultation (OR=7.6; 95%CI: 2.4–24.3) and less likely to die in intensive care (ICU) (OR=0.17; 95%CI=0.04–0.6). Progression of disease was the most common cause of death in both groups; patients with SM had lower likelihood of dying from a treatment-related cause (OR=0.06; 95%CI=0.01–0.32). Chemotherapy was administered closer to death in HM, 5.6 ± 4.2 days, compared to SM, 8.0 ± 3.7 days (IRR=2.18; 95%CI=0.58–3.78). For patients with HM, documented clinical reasoning emphasized curative intent. The dichotomization of palliative and oncologic care may contribute to worse EOL outcomes, particularly for patients receiving curative intent therapies.
KW - Chemotherapy
KW - End-of-life
KW - Malignant hematology
KW - Oncology
KW - Outcomes
KW - Quality of care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099866969&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138
DO - 10.1080/09699260.2021.1872138
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85099866969
SN - 0969-9260
VL - 29
SP - 337
EP - 341
JO - Progress in Palliative Care
JF - Progress in Palliative Care
IS - 6
ER -