BACKGROUND: Research suggests that patients' end-of-life (EOL) care is determined primarily by the medical resources available, and not by patient preferences. The authors examined whether patients' desire for life-extending therapy was associated with their EOL care. METHODS: Coping with Cancer is a multisite, prospective, longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Three hundred one patients were interviewed at baseline and followed until death, a median of 4.5 months later. Multivariate analyses examined the influence of patients' preferences and treatment site on whether patients received intensive care or hospice services in the final week of life. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 301 patients (27.6%) with advanced cancer wanted life-extending therapy at baseline. Patients who understood that their disease was terminal or who reported having EOL discussions with their physicians were less likely to want life-extending care compared with others (23.4% vs 42.6% and 20.7% vs 44.4%, respectively; P≤.003). Patients who were treated at Yale Cancer Center received more intensive care (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-8.47) and less hospice services (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92) compared with patients who were treated at Parkland Hospital. However, in multivariate analyses that controlled for confounding influences, patients who preferred life-extending care were more likely to receive intensive care (adjusted OR [AOR], 2.91; 95% CI, 1.09-7.72) and were less likely to receive hospice services (AOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78). Treatment site was not identified as a significant predictor of EOL care. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment preferences of patients with advanced cancer may play a more important role in determining the intensity of medical care received at the EOL than previously recognized. Future research is needed to determine the mechanisms by which patients' preferences for care and treatment site interact to influence EOL care.
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that patients' end-of-life (EOL) care is determined primarily by the medical resources available, and not by patient preferences. The authors examined whether patients' desire for life-extending therapy was associated with their EOL care. METHODS: Coping with Cancer is a multisite, prospective, longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Three hundred one patients were interviewed at baseline and followed until death, a median of 4.5 months later. Multivariate analyses examined the influence of patients' preferences and treatment site on whether patients received intensive care or hospice services in the final week of life. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 301 patients (27.6%) with advanced cancer wanted life-extending therapy at baseline. Patients who understood that their disease was terminal or who reported having EOL discussions with their physicians were less likely to want life-extending care compared with others (23.4% vs 42.6% and 20.7% vs 44.4%, respectively; P≤.003). Patients who were treated at Yale Cancer Center received more intensive care (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-8.47) and less hospice services (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92) compared with patients who were treated at Parkland Hospital. However, in multivariate analyses that controlled for confounding influences, patients who preferred life-extending care were more likely to receive intensive care (adjusted OR [AOR], 2.91; 95% CI, 1.09-7.72) and were less likely to receive hospice services (AOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78). Treatment site was not identified as a significant predictor of EOL care. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment preferences of patients with advanced cancer may play a more important role in determining the intensity of medical care received at the EOL than previously recognized. Future research is needed to determine the mechanisms by which patients' preferences for care and treatment site interact to influence EOL care.
Authors: E S Fisher; J E Wennberg; T A Stukel; J S Skinner; S M Sharp; J L Freeman; A M Gittelsohn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: M Danis; E Mutran; J M Garrett; S C Stearns; R T Slifkin; L Hanson; J F Williams; L R Churchill Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J C Weeks; E F Cook; S J O'Day; L M Peterson; N Wenger; D Reding; F E Harrell; P Kussin; N V Dawson; A F Connors; J Lynn; R S Phillips Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-06-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R S Phillips; N S Wenger; J Teno; R K Oye; S Youngner; R Califf; P Layde; N Desbiens; A F Connors; J Lynn Journal: Am J Med Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Timothy R Holden; Maureen A Smith; Christie M Bartels; Toby C Campbell; Menggang Yu; Amy J H Kind Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Stuart L Goldberg; Dhakshila Paramanathan; Raya Khoury; Sharmi Patel; Dayo Jagun; Srikesh Arunajadai; Victoria DeVincenzo; Ruth Pe Benito; Brooke Gruman; Sukhi Kaur; Scott Paddock; Andrew D Norden; Eric V Schultz; John Hervey; Terrill Jordan; Andre Goy; Andrew L Pecora Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-09-28
Authors: Joanna L Hart; Michael O Harhay; Nicole B Gabler; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Caroline M Quill; Scott D Halpern Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Rachel Jimenez; Baohui Zhang; Steven Joffe; Matthew Nilsson; Lorna Rivera; Jan Mutchler; Christopher Lathan; M Elizabeth Paulk; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Melissa M Garrido; Tracy A Balboni; Paul K Maciejewski; Yuhua Bao; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Xin Gao; Holly G Prigerson; Eli L Diamond; Baohui Zhang; Alexi A Wright; Fremonta Meyer; Paul K Maciejewski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Kun Chen; Francis P Boscoe; Foster C Gesten; Patrick J Roohan; Maria J Schymura; Deborah Schrag Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.983