CONTEXT: Cognitive impairment commonly affects cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether minor cognitive impairment in patients with advanced cancer is associated with the intensity of end-of-life (EOL) care or modifies the influence of patient and caregiver preferences on the intensity of EOL care. METHODS: Data were derived from structured interviews with 221 advanced cancer patient-caregiver dyads in the Coping with Cancer Study, a multisite, longitudinal cohort study. Deficits in patients' cognitive function were identified using the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ). Patients and caregivers reported preferences regarding life-extending vs. symptom-directed care. Information regarding EOL care was obtained from postmortem interviews with caregivers. Logistic regression analyses modeled main and interactive effects of patients' cognitive impairment and patients' and caregivers' treatment preferences on intensive EOL care. RESULTS: Cognitive impairment was associated with less intensive EOL care (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.91). Patients and caregivers had poor agreement regarding preferences for life-extending vs. symptom-directed care (Φ = 0.10; χ(2)=2.32, df = 1, P = 0.13). Patient preference for life-extending care predicted intensive EOL care irrespective of cognitive status (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.11; 95% CI: 1.04-4.28). For patients with no errors on the SPMSQ, caregiver preference for life-extending care was unrelated to intensive EOL care (AOR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.09-1.77). However, the association between caregiver preference for life-extending care and intensive EOL care increased by nearly a factor of seven for every error on the SPMSQ (interaction AOR = 6.90; 95% CI: 1.40-34.12). CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment in patients with advanced cancer is associated with less intensive EOL care. Caregivers' influence on intensive EOL care dramatically increases with minor declines in patients' cognitive function.
CONTEXT: Cognitive impairment commonly affects cancerpatients. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether minor cognitive impairment in patients with advanced cancer is associated with the intensity of end-of-life (EOL) care or modifies the influence of patient and caregiver preferences on the intensity of EOL care. METHODS: Data were derived from structured interviews with 221 advanced cancerpatient-caregiver dyads in the Coping with Cancer Study, a multisite, longitudinal cohort study. Deficits in patients' cognitive function were identified using the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ). Patients and caregivers reported preferences regarding life-extending vs. symptom-directed care. Information regarding EOL care was obtained from postmortem interviews with caregivers. Logistic regression analyses modeled main and interactive effects of patients' cognitive impairment and patients' and caregivers' treatment preferences on intensive EOL care. RESULTS:Cognitive impairment was associated with less intensive EOL care (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.91). Patients and caregivers had poor agreement regarding preferences for life-extending vs. symptom-directed care (Φ = 0.10; χ(2)=2.32, df = 1, P = 0.13). Patient preference for life-extending care predicted intensive EOL care irrespective of cognitive status (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.11; 95% CI: 1.04-4.28). For patients with no errors on the SPMSQ, caregiver preference for life-extending care was unrelated to intensive EOL care (AOR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.09-1.77). However, the association between caregiver preference for life-extending care and intensive EOL care increased by nearly a factor of seven for every error on the SPMSQ (interaction AOR = 6.90; 95% CI: 1.40-34.12). CONCLUSION:Cognitive impairment in patients with advanced cancer is associated with less intensive EOL care. Caregivers' influence on intensive EOL care dramatically increases with minor declines in patients' cognitive function.
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: Cristina D'Angelo; Antonio Mirijello; Lorenzo Leggio; Anna Ferrulli; Vincenzo Carotenuto; Nadia Icolaro; Antonio Miceli; Vincenzo D'Angelo; Giovanni Gasbarrini; Giovanni Addolorato Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Terri R Fried; Peter H Van Ness; Amy L Byers; Virginia R Towle; John R O'Leary; Joel A Dubin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Derek W Braverman; Brian S Marcus; Paul G Wakim; Mark R Mercurio; Gary S Kopf Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: A J Applebaum; K Buda; M Kryza-Lacombe; J J Buthorn; R Walker; K M Shaffer; T A D'Agostino; E L Diamond Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Lea J Jabbarian; Renee C Maciejewski; Paul K Maciejewski; Judith A C Rietjens; Ida J Korfage; Agnes van der Heide; Johannes J M van Delden; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Danny G Willis; Marie Bakitas; Beth Crandall; Pamela J Grace Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Eli L Diamond; Geoffrey W Corner; Antonio De Rosa; William Breitbart; Allison J Applebaum Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-05-30 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Eli L Diamond; David Russell; Maria Kryza-Lacombe; Kathryn H Bowles; Allison J Applebaum; Jeanne Dennis; Lisa M DeAngelis; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-08-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Eli L Diamond; Holly G Prigerson; Denise C Correa; Anne Reiner; Katherine Panageas; Maria Kryza-Lacombe; Justin Buthorn; Elizabeth C Neil; Alex M Miller; Lisa M DeAngelis; Allison J Applebaum Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Keiko Kurita; Mark S Lachs; Ronald D Adelman; Eugenia L Siegler; M Cary Reid; Holly G Prigerson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240