Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting

Association of patient socioeconomic status with outcomes after palliative treatment for disseminated cancer

BACKGROUND

Palliative treatment has been associated with improved quality of life and survival for a wide variety of metastatic cancers. However, it is unclear whether the benefits of palliative treatment are uniformly experienced across the US cancer population. We evaluated patterns and outcomes of palliative treatment based on socioeconomic, sociodemographic and treating facility characteristics.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2019 with Stage IV primary cancer of nine organ sites were analyzed in the National Cancer Database. The association between identified variables, and outcomes concerning the administration of palliative treatment were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Overall 238,995 (23.6%) of Stage IV patients received palliative treatment, which increased over time for all cancers (from 20.7% in 2008 to 25.6% in 2019). Palliative treatment utilization differed significantly by region (West less than Northeast, OR: 0.55 [0.54-0.56], p < 0.001) and insurance payer status (uninsured greater than private insurance, OR: 1.35 [1.32-1.39], p < 0.001). Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were also associated with lower rates of palliative treatment compared to White and non-Hispanics respectively (OR for Blacks: 0.91 [0.90-0.93], p < 0.001 and OR for Hispanics: 0.79 [0.77-0.81] p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There are important differences in the utilization of palliative treatment across different populations in the United States. A better understanding of variability in palliative treatment use and outcomes may identify opportunities to improve informed decision making and optimize quality of care at the end-of-life.

Piloting a Patient Tool to Aid Palliative Care Referrals during Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment

CONTEXT

Patient misperceptions are a strong barrier to early palliative care discussions and referrals during advanced lung cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

We developed and tested the acceptability of a web-based patient-facing palliative care education and screening tool intended for use in a planned multilevel intervention (i.e., patient, clinician, system-level targets).

METHODS

We elicited feedback from advanced lung cancer patients (n = 6), oncology and palliative care clinicians (n = 4), and a clinic administrator (n = 1) on the perceived relevance of the intervention. We then tested the prototype of a patient-facing tool for patient acceptability and preliminary effects on patient palliative care knowledge and motivation.

RESULTS

Partners agreed that the intervention-clinician palliative care education and an electronic health record-integrated patient tool-is relevant and their feedback informed development of the patient prototype. Advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 20; age 60 ± 9.8; 40% male; 70% with a technical degree or less) reviewed and rated the prototype on a five-point scale for acceptability (4.48 ± 0.55), appropriateness (4.37 ± 0.62), and feasibility (4.43 ± 0.59). After using the prototype, 75% were interested in using palliative care and 80% were more motivated to talk to their oncologist about it. Of patients who had or were at risk of having misperceptions about palliative care (e.g., conflating it with hospice), 100% no longer held the misperceptions after using the prototype.

CONCLUSION

The palliative care education and screening tool is acceptable to patients and may address misperceptions and motivate palliative care discussions during treatment.

The Association Between an Electronic Health Record (EHR)-Embedded Frailty Index and Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients with Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer on Immunotherapy: A Brief Report

Background: While frailty is a well-established predictor of overall mortality among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), its association with patient-reported outcomes is not well-characterized. The goal of this study was to examine the association between an electronic frailty index (eFI) score and patient-reported outcome measures along with prognostic awareness among patients with mNSCLC receiving immunotherapy. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, patients with mNSCLC who were on immunotherapy completed the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and the National Cancer Institute Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). We utilized bivariate analyses to compare quality of life, symptoms, supportive services, and prognostic awareness among 3 groups defined by e-frailty status. Results: Sixty patients (mean age 62.5 years, 75% Caucasian, 60% women) participated. Most patients were pre-frail (68%), with 13% being frail and 18% non-frail. Pre-frail and frail patients had significantly lower physical function scores (mean 83.9 fit vs 74.8 pre-frail vs 60.0 frail, P = .04) and higher rates of self-reported pain (75% frail vs 41.5% pre-frail vs 18.2% fit; P = .04) compared to non-frail patients. We found no differences in palliative referral rates. Conclusion: Pre-frail and frail mNSCLC patients identified by the eFI have higher rates of pain and physical functional impairments than non-frail patients. These findings highlight the importance of emphasizing preventive interventions targeting social needs, functional limitations, and pain management, especially among pre-frail patients to reduce further decline.