Perspectives on Transfusions for Hospice Patients With Blood Cancers: A Survey of Hospice Providers

CONTEXT

Patients with blood cancers have low rates of hospice use. While lack of transfusion access in hospice is posited to substantially contribute to these low rates, little is known about the perspectives of hospice providers regarding transfusion access in hospice.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize hospice providers' perspectives regarding care for patients with blood cancers and transfusions in the hospice setting.

METHODS

In 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of hospices in the United States regarding their experience caring for patients with blood cancers, perceived barriers to hospice use, and interventions to increase enrollment.

RESULTS

We received 113 completed surveys (response rate = 23.5%). Of the cohort, 2.7% reported that their agency always offers transfusions, 40.7% reported sometimes offering transfusions, and 54.9% reported never offering transfusions. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with offering transfusions included nonprofit ownership (OR 5.93, 95% CI, 2.2-15.2) and daily census >50 patients (OR 3.06, 95% CI, 1.19-7.87). Most respondents (76.6%) identified lack of transfusion access in hospice as a barrier to hospice enrollment for blood cancer patients. The top intervention considered as "very helpful" for increasing enrollment was additional reimbursement for transfusions (72.1%).

CONCLUSION

In this national sample of hospices, access to palliative transfusions was severely limited and was considered a significant barrier to hospice use for blood cancer patients. Moreover, hospices felt increased reimbursement for transfusions would be an important intervention. These data suggest that hospice providers are supportive of increasing transfusion access and highlight the critical need for innovative hospice payment models to improve end-of-life care for patients with blood cancers.

Effect of a Symptom Monitoring Intervention for Patients Hospitalized With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Symptom monitoring interventions are increasingly becoming the standard of care in oncology, but studies assessing these interventions in the hospital setting are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a symptom monitoring intervention on symptom burden and health care use among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This nonblinded randomized clinical trial conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, assessed 321 hospitalized adult patients with advanced cancer and admitted to the inpatient oncology services of an academic hospital. Data obtained through November 13, 2020, were included in analyses, and all analyses assessed the intent-to-treat population.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups reported their symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) daily via tablet computers. Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports displayed during daily oncology rounds, with alerts for moderate, severe, or worsening symptoms. Patients assigned to usual care did not have their symptom reports displayed to their clinical teams.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of days with improved symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and readmission rates. Linear regression was used to evaluate differences in hospital length of stay. Competing-risk regression (with death treated as a competing event) was used to compare differences in time to first unplanned readmission within 30 days.

RESULTS

From February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, 390 patients (76.2% enrollment rate) were randomized. Study analyses to assess change in symptom burden included 321 of 390 patients (82.3%) who had 2 or more days of symptom reports completed (usual care, 161 of 193; intervention, 160 of 197). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (12.8) years and were mostly male (180; 56.1%), self-reported as White (291; 90.7%), and married (230; 71.7%). The most common cancer type was gastrointestinal (118 patients; 36.8%), followed by lung (60 patients; 18.7%), genitourinary (39 patients; 12.1%), and breast (29 patients; 9.0%). No significant differences were detected between the intervention and usual care for the proportion of days with improved ESAS-physical (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.05; P = .56), ESAS-total (B = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.02; P = .17), PHQ-4-depression (B = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04; P = .55), and PHQ-4-anxiety (B = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03; P = .29) symptoms. Intervention patients also did not differ significantly from patients receiving usual care for the secondary end points of hospital length of stay (7.59 vs 7.47 days; B = 0.13; 95% CI, -1.04 to 1.29; P = .83) and 30-day readmission rates (26.5% vs 33.8%; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial found that for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, the assessed symptom monitoring intervention did not have a significant effect on patients' symptom burden or health care use. These findings do not support the routine integration of this type of symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03396510.

Effects of a perioperative geriatric intervention for older adults with Cancer: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Older adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery.

METHODS

From 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥ 65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses.

RESULTS

ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P = 0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.690), or complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P = 0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P = 0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P = 0.137) remained non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

Randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention for older adults with cancer

12012

Background: Older adults with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative (post-op) length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, and readmissions. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention in older adults with GI cancers undergoing surgery. Methods: We randomly assigned patients age ≥65 with GI cancers planning to undergo surgical resection to receive a perioperative geriatric intervention or usual care. Intervention patients met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and post-op as an inpatient consultant. The geriatrician conducted a geriatric assessment and made recommendations to the surgical/oncology teams. The primary end point was post-op LOS. Secondary end points included post-op ICU use, readmission risk, and patient-reported symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale). We conducted both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. Results: From 9/13/16-4/30/19, we randomized 160 patients (72.4% enrollment rate; median age = 72 [65-92]). The ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). The PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received both pre- and post-op intervention components. In ITT analyses, we found no significant differences between intervention and usual care in post-op LOS (7.2 v 8.2 days, P = .37), ICU use (23.3% v 32.4%, p = .23), and readmission rates within 90 days of surgery (21.7% v 25.0%, p = .65). Intervention patients reported lower depression symptoms (B = -1.39, P < .01) at post-op day 5 and fewer moderate/severe ESAS symptoms at post-op day 60 (B = -1.09, P = .02). In PP analyses, intervention patients had significantly shorter post-op LOS (5.9 v 8.2 days, P = .02) and lower rates of post-op ICU use (13.3% v 32.4%, p < .05), but readmission rates were not significantly different (16.7% v 25.0%, p = .36). Conclusions: Although this perioperative geriatric intervention did not have a significant impact on the primary end point in ITT analysis, we found encouraging results in several secondary outcomes and for the subgroup of patients who received the planned intervention. Future studies of this perioperative geriatric intervention should include efforts, such as telehealth visits, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02810652 .

St. Luke's Hospice: Prioritizing Comfort, Not Cure, in the Hospital Setting

The American hospice movement arose in the 1970s as an alternative to standard hospital care for terminally ill patients, emphasizing symptom management and psychological and spiritual care. St. Luke's Hospice of New York City was an outlier in this movement. While other hospices sought to distance themselves from the preexisting healthcare system for fear of its corrupting influence, St. Luke's sought to transform the system from within. While other hospices ultimately accommodated state and federal regulations for terminal care, St. Luke's tried to survive outside of this newly regulated space. This examination of St. Luke's Hospice complicates the preexisting narrative of the hospice movement as a countercultural movement that was subsequently corrupted by integration into mainstream healthcare. It also demonstrates opportunities and challenges in trying to change the structure and culture of the acute care hospital.

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility, Risk Perceptions, and Clinician Delivery of Tobacco Cessation Among Patients With Schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Individuals with schizophrenia experience increased lung cancer mortality and decreased access to cancer screening and tobacco cessation treatment. To promote screening among individuals with schizophrenia, it is necessary to investigate the proportion who meet screening criteria and examine smoking behaviors, cancer risk perception, and receipt of tobacco cessation interventions from psychiatry and primary care.

METHODS

The authors performed a cross-sectional survey and medical record review with 112 adults with schizophrenia treated with clozapine in a community mental health clinic (CMHC).

RESULTS

Among older participants (ages 55-77 years) with schizophrenia, 34% met the criteria for lung screening on the basis of smoking history (heavy current or former smokers), and more than half believed they had a low risk of developing lung cancer. Of all participants, 88% had visited their primary care provider (PCP) in the past year; PCPs represented 35 different practices. Only one in three current smokers reported that their PCP or psychiatrist assisted them in obtaining medications for tobacco cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Given smoking history, many older adults with schizophrenia have potential to benefit from lung screening, yet most older participants underestimated their lung cancer risk. Although participants regularly accessed care, PCP and psychiatric visits may be missed opportunities to engage patients with schizophrenia in tobacco cessation and decrease preventable premature mortality. Embedding interventions in a CMHC, a centralized access point of care delivery for patients with schizophrenia, may have unique potential to increase uptake of cancer screening and tobacco cessation interventions.

Quality of Life, Mood, and Prognostic Understanding in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Although breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women in the United States, few studies focus on the supportive care needs of patients living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

OBJECTIVE

We studied quality of life (QOL), depression, anxiety, and prognostic understanding of patients with MBC.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 140 patients with MBC, stratified by receipt of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy.

MEASUREMENTS

We evaluated anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We assessed QOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), specifically measuring the FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI), which includes physical and functional well-being and breast cancer-specific symptoms. Higher FACT-B TOI scores represent better QOL. We used a 12-item questionnaire to assess patients' perceptions of their prognosis and goals of therapy.

RESULTS

Compared to those taking endocrine therapy (n = 40), patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 100) reported lower scores on the FACT-B TOI (66.1 versus 72.5, p < 0.01) and more depression symptoms (HADS-D >7; 22% versus 7.5%, p = 0.03). Higher scores on the FACT-B TOI were associated with lower depression (β, -0.16; p < 0.01) and anxiety (β, -0.11; p < 0.01), and patients who reported frequent prognostic conversations with their oncologists had less depression (β, -1.28; p < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent (54/140) reported that their cancer was likely curable.

CONCLUSION

Patients with MBC, particularly those treated with chemotherapy, may benefit from interventions to address their physical, functional, and breast cancer-related symptoms. Many do not report accurate prognostic understanding, and more frequent prognostic conversations might address this information gap.